Comments for page "Propaganda OnViEW"

Politicians should

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:57:08 +0000

I believe politicians should be able to use propaganda to be able to support there campaign in many different ways. For example plain folk, transfer and name calling those all happen when a candidate is running and i would support someone who is running like that if they also had facts to back up there propaganda. Politicians use propaganda all the time and it seems to work mso why would we want to stop the politicians from supporting themselves and their campaign.

Re: Claudia's Re: Ellie's Thesis so listen up

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:51:44 +0000

I think you can have a lot of money as a candidate a pay for lots of propaganda but if your not a good candidate your propaganda probably want be good. Also when you see propaganda like testimonials you might be able to pay a celebrity but if it makes no since why the are supporting you it doesn't matter how much they spend or how much money the have.

Re: Propaganda

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:45:47 +0000

I agree with the propaganda choices you've used and they most likely will work. I disagree about you drawing the line when every body is voting for you because you want people to vote for you and stay on your side and you just stop giving them reasons why they should vote for you they might hear another message and your voters are gone.

(no title)

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:48:00 +0000

Yeah, what john said!

(no title)

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:46:25 +0000

Think about this armando. what if all politicians used was negetive propaganda, like name calling. name calling isn't
always true about someone and that person might get very mad.

Re: Shawn Tree

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:40:30 +0000

I agree with armand becasue if politicians coulden't use propaganda, it would be very hard to win the election and we would have less candidates to run for office.

Propaganda

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:37:24 +0000

I believe that politicians should be able to use propaganda in debates becasue most if not all politicians use propaganda anyway. We see propaganda in our every day lives:billboards, bumper stickers, TV ads, and much, much more. If we got rid of propaganda people would look at TV ads and go "What is this". things would look very different than we are used to. Also propaganda motivates buyers if people were uninterested in buying things, there is less money in circulation, which can harm the economy.

Re: Thesis

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:08:54 +0000

I disagree with your statement because there are times when one would need to talk themselves up and not try to balance both sides of an argument. Sometimes, you just have to speak loudly and strongly about the beliefs you hold. Seems to me, it's the job of the media to show both sides and there used to be strong laws for that. Media outlets were not allowed to have one candidate on and not another. That's not the case today. Seems to me, people should have a bigger problem with the media coverage than a candidate's use of propaganda. And just because someone has money doesn't mean he/she didn't live a life that makes him/her "plain folk." Obama wasn't born rich.

Re: Propaganda

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:00:00 +0000

I agree completely. First of all most advertising IS propaganda. So to say politicians should not use propaganda is like saying they should not use advertisng. I don't understand how else they could get their face out there. I mean, in certain ways even before all of this new technology, candidates used propaganda. Candidates, even before tv and the internet, they had to have said, at some point, that they are better for the job and not say the negative about themselves, only their opponents. That would have been proganda, too.

Lexi's Opinion

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:46:47 +0000

When a candidate is running for office, I don't see any other way to get a message out or to dispel a myth than by using propaganda. Though propaganda has tricked many people recently, such as when President Bush said not fighting in Iraq would mean inviting the terrorists to attack us here (even though the attacks of 911 had nothing to do with Iraq), it does have its place. For example, in President Bill Clinton's campaign video, he used an "appeal to authority message" to let voters know his economic plan had the support of hundreds of leading economists. That's good information that a voter needs. Even if they don't agree, they know they disagree with more than just him. In the case of the ad for John Kerry, I think it was effective to use a veteran to speak out for another veteran who was running for president (testimonial). In a time of war, when a veteran was running against a war president who hadn't served in any wars, the message was needed, even if it was considered propaganda.

Re: Cecilia's thesis

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:37:59 +0000

Good Example from the VIDEO Cecilia!

Re: Claudia propaganda

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:34:20 +0000

Claudia,

You think people should be able to use "pinpointing the enemy" and "insinuation?"

Re: Royce Purley

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:32:51 +0000

good use of examples Royce.

Re: Ellie's Thesis so listen up

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:31:25 +0000

Hoben

How do you intend on preventing someone from saying "God Bless America" during a debate?

(no title)

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:26:17 +0000

August… don't just let him off the hook!

(no title)

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:25:40 +0000

Adam, you are correct in some regard… however, does free speech give me the right to misrepresent myself OR (even worse) misrepresent others?

Re: Shawn Tree

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:23:13 +0000

even harshly negative propaganda like pinpointing the enemy?

Re: Propaganda

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:21:26 +0000

nice point Emily!

Fanastic Jewfro I agree with what you said

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:46:53 +0000

Yes propaganda is a dirty trick in some ways. But in other ways it is one of the most creative ways to get the word out about your candidate. IT works because it relates to things people can relate t or understand. Good Post!

Re: Propaganda is bad, but acceptable!

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:35:20 +0000

Wrong, it distracts them from the bad and makes them only see the good.

Re: Propagnada

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:34:18 +0000

It is a dirty and childish way but it does work.

Re: Lukes 2 Cents

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:59:01 +0000

Really? You forgot about all of the accusations of Obama being a communist that came out of nowhere being thrown around? Don't you remember all of the bitter ads that lashed out at the other candidates? Don't you remember how Sarah Palin had her campaign torn apart by the Liberal Media?

I don't know, maybe my definition of a Flame War is different than yours.

Re: Who would decide

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:52:34 +0000

It's not if propaganda is '"Good" or "Bad" that will decide if it is allowed, it would be if it were "Positive" or "Negative". For example: "John McCain is a turkey" would not be allowed, but "Barack Obama is a good candidate" would. (I'm not trying to show off my political affiliation here, I'm just using an example. And, no - I don't think Senator McCain is a turkey)

Re: Benton's Thesis

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:53:09 +0000

I agree with the fact that propaganda should be used in campaigns. I do not agree that propaganda should be used to get candidates who can only make good propaganda elected. This is one of the downsides of propaganda, because it can get a bad politician who is a good campaigner elected.

Re: Propaganda is bad, but acceptable!

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:45:26 +0000

Propaganda does not make voters blind, it does the opposite. Most people are simply not smart enough to understand a politician's planks, which makes them blind as far as the election goes. With propaganda, the voters are at least knowledgeable on a very basic level.

Propagnada

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:38:03 +0000

I believe that propaganda is the best way for a politician to get his/her point across. While propaganda can be misleading, it is what most people will listen to. No one wants to listen to hours of speech, because that can get boring. Propaganda is quick and simple, and that is what people will listen to and understand. The propaganda with no facts, such as name calling, is proven to be the least effective of propaganda. Propaganda is the easiest way for a politician to get his/her point across.

Re: Propaganda

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:37:37 +0000

I agree with "Dr. Jelly Bean" when saying "we see propaganda SO MUCH in our everyday lives that it is sometimes hard to distinguish in political campaigns". Politicians try to hide the fact that they are using propaganda so, it is difficult to tell when they are using propaganda. I also agree with "Dr. Jelly Bean" when saying "Some people don't read the newspaper to catch up on all the latest political happenings, and often posters and other multimedia propaganda is how they get their information". I NEVER read the newpaper so, they way I see the politicians messages are through multimedia sources. If politicians did not express their message through the televisions, A LOT of people would not hear their message.

Re: Shawn Tree

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:31:47 +0000

I agree with Shawn when he says "Propaganda is also very helpful to the politicians when it comes to persuasion. In order to win over a crowd, one must usually have to persuade people into believing that they are the best at whatever it is". If politicians could not use propaganda, it would be difficult to persuade people to vote for them. Also I agree with Shawn when saying "Without propaganda, politician's messages would really effect his or her's campaign". If politicians could not use propaganda, they would have to win a croud over basically with their campaigning which would be difficult.

Propaganda is bad, but acceptable!

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:19:01 +0000

As I see it, propaganda shows weakness in a politician and may be a low blow to the competition, but they can still use it. It racks up votes and gets blind followers even more blind. The most we can do is sit back and hope our candidate has better propaganda than their candidate.

Harry's thesis

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:18:18 +0000

I think that candidates should use propaganda because it is a good way of getting their political message out. If the candidate says "I don't think propaganda is right," and doesn't use any, people wont know what their beliefs are and probably won't vote for them. Also, is the propaganda, the candidate has to use things that may not be all the way true, because he really wants to be elected, and people won't vote for him if he doesn't say he will do what is good for the people. Like what Cecelia said, the candidate is not going to say that they aren't good for america, because there would be no point in doing that, so of course they are going to give one sided stories, even if its kind of bad to do so.

Re: An Awesome Thesis.

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:17:53 +0000

Campaign money does not contribute to the economy. Lots of it is taken from tax dollars, and it goes toward the networks, who use it to make another TV show. If two people campaign against each other, a poor genius and a rich idiot, the rich one would win and tank the country because he can win the people with propaganda. Joseph Stalin used propaganda and spent his vast resources on it, and you all know what he did. If a limit is put in place, the playing field would be leveled. As Adia said,

John McCain compared Barack Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Most people knew more about this feud than the candidate's actual ideas.<

Re: Propaganda

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:16:26 +0000

I agree. Also isn't propaganda pretty much the main thing in elections that gets people to want to vote?

Re: Propaganda

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:13:57 +0000

Propaganda is a form of advertising agauda1, People use propaganda to influence you into going onto their side. People could still get their points across with minimal effort if they just say it how it is. Propaganda is just a helper.

Re: Claudia's Re: Ellie's Thesis so listen up

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:12:32 +0000

I think CLaudia is right because it is unfair if a candidate has more money, because they can use more propaganda, but i think that loads of propaganda, but not a good candidate, would mean that it doesn't matter how much propaganda they used. But i do agree that it is pretty unfair to the person who is less rich.

Re: Josh Shaw Thesis Statement

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:57:25 +0000

saying there shouldn't be any propaganda in advertising is completely useless.
any advertisement without propaganda would be like. BUY BEER.
without propaganda you couldn't explain why, or use any "virtue words" or have limited colors and pictures and stuff like that.

Re: Tess Propaganda

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:15:12 +0000

I agree with you Tess, because propaganda is an easy way to get voters on your side. Also, I think that politicians should make their own dedcision on how much money they spend on propaganda because they have to take a risk either way. If they don't spend enough on propaganda, they might lose voters. If they spend too much on propaganda, they loose money. So it could go either way. There actually might already be a spending limit, I'm not sure though. But I definitly agree that politicians should be able to use propaganda.

Re: My Thesis Statement

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:11:44 +0000

I agree, as I said in my thesis, this will change the effectiveness of their speeches, and the listeners will notice that it was different and feel that the politicians have left something out.

Re: Sara's Thesis

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:10:00 +0000

You make a good point Hoben, but don't you think you need to use your "smarts" for propaganda techniques? Also many politicians use both propaganda and their smarts. Using their "smarts" makes people want to vote for them, but if they just add some propaganda that makes people want to vote for them more. Don't you think?

Re: Claudia propaganda

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:07:17 +0000

I agree with you Claudia, because you are saying the propaganda is very useful and that it would be difficult with out it. I also think that John Kerry's video was a good example because it made the viewer want to vote for him which was his whole point. I also agree because most of, if not all of the videos had one type of propaganda and it would be pretty hard to make a video to get people on their side without using a propaganda technique.

Thesis

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:03:46 +0000

I believe that propaganda should be used in political campaigns, but to an extent were it would not cost too much money trying to invoke the propaganda. Although spending money is part of campaigning, I still think that there should be a limit on how much they spend on this. I do not think propaganda such as name calling should be used. Only propaganda that specifically helps the politician using it. Since propaganda is so common and politicians use it so much, citizens who don't recognize or know about propaganda will notice a huge change in the way that politicians advertise or give speeches, and this may make them nervous because they have to watch what they say and omit anything that comes to their mind that uses any form of propaganda.

Re: Sara's Thesis

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:23:39 +0000

Hoben, the politicians use their smarts through propaganda, if they are smart, there propaganda will be very persuasive. The politicians use their smarts in other ways too. Propaganda is one of these ways.

Re: Shawn Tree

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:48:59 +0000

I agree with you. I think you are right. CORRECT

My Thesis

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:39:07 +0000

I believe that it is totaly ok for a political figure to use propaganda to help his campaign. Its not good that poorer candidates arent able to do this as easily but that doesnt mean it should be illegal.propaganda is a great way to show who you (want people to think you) are. I also think it is important to have that ability and is good for the country.

Re: Lukes 2 Cents

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:36:23 +0000

I really don't see your point luke. last years eletion wasn't really a flame war. none of the elections really are. I think that if your going to allow propaganda, you have to allow the people and candidates to do whatever they can in order to get voters. the whole idea of the campaign and the election is to win. By taking away some of the forms of propaganda, it restricts the politicians. I don't think your point is ligitimant because the campaigns don't really turn into flame wars, the are pretty organized.

Re: Shawn Tree

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:31:14 +0000

i agree with that no candidate would admit their problems. If they did voting would be much easier. I personally would want the candidates to be forced to tell the whole truth. The problem with that idea is that we live in a competitive society and if the people who ran our country always told us everything we would feel unsafe and scared. From this i conclude that if it is possible to dispose of the lying it would be wonderful, but sometimes we need half truths to make the decision easier.

Re: My Thesis Statement

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:30:10 +0000

Good point Paul. the campaigns would definately be very bland. Propaganda is what brings most of the attention to the campaigns anyway by taking that away, it makes the it harder for people to chose sides. I agree with paul in that propaganda should be allowed.

Re: My Thesis

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:26:44 +0000

I see your point ben. I sort of agree because if one candidate has more money than another, they an make more propaganda and this can make this persons winning chances sufficiently greater which can be unfair. on the other end, the whole piont of the election is to win so i think that there shouldn't be a cap because it will restrain the people who have more money to spend and lower their winning chances.

Re: Propaganda

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:22:21 +0000

I agree, and also feel it all depends on what type of propaganda. Name calling, go for it. Transfer, go ahead. When it comes to saying that everybody is voting for you though, thats when the line should be drawn. Pretty much propaganda is just always part of debates so there isnt really a reason to change it.

Re: Sara's Thesis

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:19:10 +0000

I don't agree with you guys. I think that without propaganda the candidates will need to use there smarts to get people to vote for them not just propaganda.

Re: Sara's Thesis

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:18:07 +0000

I totally agree with that point. Propaganda is a huge way for politicians to get out their position. By taking away propaganda, you hurt the politicians chances of winning. It also makes it harder for then to get voters. I think sara made a good point about this.

Re: Curtis-Thesis

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:17:14 +0000

True, but candidates also learn a rather large sum of money from their supporters.. should politicians not be allowed to use the money that their supporters are giving them?..

Re: Propaganda

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:15:40 +0000

Yes this is how people are informed before they come to the polls, but shouldn't their be a law that enforces the candidates to show all their sides in propaganda? If you could get the whole truth you can truly vote for the best candidate in your eyes. Also, a commercial has much easier acess so people will be more inclined to pay attention to the platform of each candidate.

Benton's Thesis

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:14:04 +0000

I, like most people, think that we should allow propaganda to be used in campaigning. Propaganda is a huge way to get people to pay attention to the election and to choose which person they will vote for. By taking propaganda away, you take away a huge part of the campaign. Also, in the election, the candidate might not be very good at anything except propaganda. If you take propaganda away, you totally crush there chances of winning. Also, propaganda is a good way for the people to get involved. In our notes, it said that this was a major part of the campaign. If you take awway that, people don't get as much of a say in how the election will go other than by voting.

Re: Shawn Tree

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:09:04 +0000

I also agree with Shawn. Propaganda is a perfect way of trying to convince voters to vote for you. I think propaganda is one of the strongest ways to win over voters. I have a question for you TreeRound. Why do politicians rely so much on propaganda to win voters over, shouldn't politicians just use the truth and positive opportunity for change(like Will said)?

(no title)

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:05:55 +0000

I believe that propaganda should be allowed, but their should be rules. If there are no rules people may go too far. Such as, Obama ran into problems when another candidate pointed out that he did drugs in high school. Opponents should not be allowed to reach back so far into the others past for dirt. Still it is important to have propaganda because that is the main way the public become informed. They may not be the most informed with all the good and the bad information, but it is still better than no one voting or just guessing.

Re: Josh Shaw Thesis Statement

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:05:49 +0000

Alright, I do agree with what Josh is saying, but I don't see how the other part of his statement has anything to do with the topic.. can you go into more detail about propaganda in campaigns, Josh?

Re: Ellie's Thesis so listen up

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:02:08 +0000

I agree with part of your statement. I do believe that we should use propaganda, but I do not agree with your proposal to put a spending limit on it. If a politician is working hard and earning supporters with their propaganda, shouldn't they be allowed to use the money that their hard earned supporters are giving them?

Re: Propaganda

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:58:32 +0000

I agree with what you are saying, definitely. Politics would be way different without propaganda, in good and bad ways. I don't like the use of so much negative propaganda because I think it draws away from the positive aspects of both of the politicians, but in some cases it is also necessary to convince voters to vote for one candidate instead of the other.

Re: Propaganda

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:56:12 +0000

I strongly agree with Will's statement. When politicians start using 'questionable' material against eachother, a certain 'cat-mouse' game starts to follow. I don't think that candidates should use information unless it's proven to be true. I also disagree with propaganda like name-calling, because I find it to be unproffesional.

Re: Cecilia's thesis

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:53:09 +0000

I agree with Cecilia, propaganda helps voters make their own decisions, as well as exercising the candidate's right to free speech.

Comments for page "Propaganda OnViEW"

Politicians should

Re: Claudia's Re: Ellie's Thesis so listen up

Re: Propaganda

(no title)

(no title)

Re: *Shawn Tree*

Propaganda

Re: Thesis

Re: Propaganda

Lexi's Opinion

Re: Cecilia's thesis

Re: Claudia propaganda

Re: Royce Purley

Re: Ellie's Thesis so listen up

(no title)

(no title)

Re: *Shawn Tree*

Re: Propaganda

Fanastic Jewfro I agree with what you said

Re: Propaganda is bad, but acceptable!

Re: Propagnada

Re: Lukes 2 Cents

Re: Who would decide

Re: Benton's Thesis

Re: Propaganda is bad, but acceptable!

Propagnada

Re: Propaganda

Re: *Shawn Tree*

Propaganda is bad, but acceptable!

Harry's thesis

Re: An Awesome Thesis.

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Claudia's Re: Ellie's Thesis so listen up

Re: Josh Shaw Thesis Statement

Re: Tess Propaganda

Re: My Thesis Statement

Re: Sara's Thesis

Re: Claudia propaganda

Thesis

Re: Sara's Thesis

Re: *Shawn Tree*

My Thesis

Re: Lukes 2 Cents

Re: *Shawn Tree*

Re: My Thesis Statement

Re: My Thesis

Re: Propaganda

Re: Sara's Thesis

Re: Sara's Thesis

Re: Curtis-Thesis

Re: Propaganda

Benton's Thesis

Re: *Shawn Tree*

(no title)

Re: Josh Shaw Thesis Statement

Re: Ellie's Thesis so listen up

Re: Propaganda

Re: Propaganda

Re: Cecilia's thesis

Re: Shawn Tree

Re: Shawn Tree

Re: Shawn Tree

Re: Shawn Tree

Re: Shawn Tree

Re: Shawn Tree