Election 2012: Using Attack to build Character

President Barrack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney exhange smiles ahead of their Presidential Debate. However, there's been a lot more dirty work being done in the advertising.

 

It’s time once again to join the travelling media circus that comes around every four years. On November 6, 2012, the people of America will take to the polls to decide the President of the United States, the man who single handily becomes one of the most powerful in the world for the next four years. Of course, many Americans have already decided on their vote, as their political views run deep through their veins. But with growing conflicts around the globe,  the undecided will need to choose one of these men to lead the world’s superpower, one job that requires a lot of character, not to mention the stress that comes with it (I don’t think Obama had a single grey in ’08).

Since announcing their candidates, both the Democratic and Republican parties have been hard at work to one up the other to appeal to the undecided voters. With the television becoming a common household item in the 1950s, election campaigns have run to promote the candidate vying to become the President. There has always been a strong emphasis on the character of a candidate, as the American people need a strong person to lead their country to victory and global dominance. In 1960, John F. Kennedy’s staff ran an ad promoting his youthfulness being just what American needed, in essence to rid themselves from the past old presidents. George H.W. Bush too boosted his character in 1988, running an ad portraying him as a family man, and average American just like everyone else. But times have changed drastically since then, with a major shift away from building your own character.

Election campaigns have taken a turn for the worse (for good reasons) in recent years, as a growing trend in political advertising has moved to promote the party by attacking the other candidate, essentially building their ethos off the errors of the other. Surely everyone knows about Mr. Obama by now. He’s had six years of media exposer playing up his character, his policies, and his wonderful speaking abilities. The republicans have criticized his rhetorical power for going too far, and doing nothing about the growing unemployment rate. Romney on the other hand is new to the show, as the average American may not be up to date with his political stand point. However, if they watched one of the democratic ads, they would believe that he ships jobs out of the country, causing struggling families to succumb to their debt. These ads are not designed for the extreme Republican and Democratic supporters, who vote for their parties no matter what, but rather the masses who particularly don’t follow politics regularly. Franz and Ridout call this the knowledge hypothesis, stating that these ads will have a stronger effect of the Americans less in tuned with politics, persuading them to one side of the spectrum.

Specifically looking at Barrack Obama’s “Understands” ad, the Priorities USA Advertisers claim that because of Mitt Romney’s decision to move a company out of the United States, Mr. Soptic (the man in the ad) lost his wife. Rhetorically, the ad is blaming Romney for the death of this woman, attaching tags such as, “murderer,” to his persona. To the average American in a conundrum, not knowing who to vote for, this speaks a great deal about who they should not vote for. Franz and Ridout point out two main factors influencing voters being partisanship and political knowledge, stating that the less knowledge a person has of politics, the more political ads are going to affect their decision, as opposed to those who are in the know. Obama’s ad works wonders on unknowing Americans, especially the unemployed, as they won’t want Romney harming anyone in their family.

Mitt Romney’s campaign takes similar approaches to their advertising, building up the lesser known Romney by exploiting the faults of Obama during his four year term. Two clever ads featuring the tagline, “Failing American _______” ran criticising Obama for not stopping manufactures in China from stealing jobs, and taking money away from families in America. Again, the ad plays fantastically on the politically naïve, as Americans in crisis look at Romney as the saviour for all of the problems Obama has caused. While this ad plays a general American theme, Romney’s campaign also released an ad criticizing Obama for giving the government credit for creating all small businesses, claiming that the ownersand entrepreneurs did not do it alone. The icing on the cake is that the video featured a man from Ohio, one of the states Romney is keen on taking to secure his spot in the White House. The ad devalues and attacks Obama’s character, as he tries to take credit for all of the hard work of the American people. On the other hand, Romney’s ethos grows, as he’s portrayed as a compassionate leader, encouraging the American people to live their dreams and build their own businesses.

So far this election campaign, no candidate has been spared, as each have gone head strong after the other. It seems as if we’ve moved away from a time of judging people by their character and good deeds, to condemning them for their faults, gaining from their blunders and misfortunes. Both Obama and Romney need not worry about building their own character to impress the voters, but must keep their composure to ensure their rival doesn’t receive an upper hand. May the best attacker win.

Damsels In Marketing

Advertising can be a cruel game played on morals. In fact, advertisers have tested the boundaries ruthlessly over the past few decades, pushing them further to allow edgier ad campaigns to be published and, essentially, become the norm in our society. In all sorts of media, women are degraded, shown in skimpy clothing and in sexually appealing poses, to draw in the audience (particularly men) to purchase the product. In no ways is this practice new, but the ways women have been portrayed has change drastically. Still, we as a society seem to keep moving further away from dignity. What is it about women in these ads that drives the audience (literally) crazy for them?

There are a lot of trends and patterns when looking at the depiction women on movie posters as a whole. Dealing with women as the main character, the poster largely focuses on their face, not allowing the audience to be drawn in to their sexual body features. Looking at Angelina Jolie on the cover of Salt, she looks fierce, determined, and mean; all qualities that are often not associated with women in advertising, especially when promoting products to a male audience (it may be argued that Jolie is an exception, as he persona as a tough woman from her success in the Tomb Raider Franchise). Again, Natalie Portman on the cover of, The Black Swan, and Meryl Streep in, The Iron Lady, all feature the actress’ from the neck up, leaving the rest of the body out of the equation.

This is not the same when it comes to male lead roles. Typically, action films will depict a “man in charge,” with the damsel in distress clinging on to him to survive. A growing trend with women as support actors is displaying them as vulnerable, and unable to care for themselves. This is common everywhere, with men holding women back, such as in the Twilight Saga, where Kristen Stewart is not able to defend herself (thank goodness Robert’s there). His hand is firmly planted on her wrist, holding her back from potentially running into any danger. This vulnerability speaks to the audience, putting feelings of macho-ness into the already inflated male ego looking at the poster. The poster aims for men to look at the poster and think, “I’ll protect you, Kristen,” as well as building drama for fans of the actual film.

Hands also play a vital role in movie posters, as seen above with the Breaking Dawn poster, particularly with what the men’s are doing and what the women’s are not. According to her article, “What’s Wrong With a Little Objectification,” Sut Jhally explains that “women’s hands usually are shown just caressing an object, or just barely touching it…whereas men’s hands are shown strongly grasping and manipulating objects.” Looking at the movie poster for Drive Angry, this message is hit spot on, with Nicholas Cage in full control of the vehicle, while the actress looks vulnerable, only to be kept safe by Mr. Cage. Her hair flies in the wind, untamed and out of control. Simply if she cannot take care of her hair, she can definitely not take care of her own wellbeing.

Jennifer Pozner explains that men feel entitled to sexiness, and the advertisers are going to exploit it in order to sell their product. There is a standard of beauty that must be lived up to, as putting any woman on a poster may have mixed results, and essentially, cause a failed campaign. This standard, along with making the woman look vulnerable compliment each other to draw in the audience. Not only are these posters giving the audience an attractive woman to look at, but there is also the need for them (again, the men) to protect this woman from the dangers that could possibly lie ahead.

Is there really any stop to the exploitation of women, or have we gone too far as culture that it will only be pushed further and further? I believe the latter will continue to dominate, as the ultimate deterrent is not the dignity of said model exposing herself, but the dollars that are brought into the pockets of the advertiser.