I think propaganda should be used in political debates because if not then a lot of the things that the politicians say would come off less effective. Also propaganda is used in everyday advertising so it should therefore be used in politics. Politics wouldn't be the same without propaganda and things would be much harder to get out to the public.
I agree we see propaganda SO MUCH in our everyday lives that it is sometimes hard to distinguish in political campaigns. Because of this I think it would be difficult (to say the least) to cut this fact of life completely out of political campaigns. 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. We are always trying to get more people to vote, and this is how.
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.
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.
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.
I completely agree with this statement because without propaganda it would make the opinions and planks of the candidate less affective and less well known. Also it would be very hard to advertise for your candidate without using some form of propaganda.
I agree with Anna, but you also have to remember that propaganda and advertising are not the same thing, though they are similar. For example, if a candidate weren't allowed to use propaganda they could still make commercials and stuff, just not as efficiently.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I believe that politicians should be allowed to use propaganda. Propaganda is an easier way to get the politician's message across. 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. Without propaganda, politician's messages would really effect his or her's campaign.
I agree with shawn because if we didn't have propaganda persuasion would come off as a scam. Which would cause people not to vote for the politician. Propaganda is a very important aspect of a politician's life.
The fact is, even just saying your stand on certain things is (if somewhat loosely) card stacking. No one would really think of this as propaganda, let alone a scam to get voters. This would merely be thought of as presenting facts. What voters really need is not a ban on propaganda altogether, but more of a two-sided campaign. This is sometimes (but not always) provided by the opposing side. This is why debates are good.
It's Devi Acharya. Read this post well.
i strongly agree with this statement. By stating a person's ideas and plans, they are in fact using propaganda. A person who is running for an office is highly unlikely to get up there and say "I only want the title and I have bad ideas and am incompetent", they would talk about how great their ideas are and how they are going to be a good leader, which, whether true or false, is a form of propaganda.
I definitely agree with Cecelia because that it exactly what i was thinking when i wastched the videos. The canidate almost has to use propaganda because they aren't going to say i dont know what I'm doing. I also think that propaganda isn't exactly wrong, because it is what the canidate has to do to get elected. Propaganda also informs people about what the canidate is going to do, even if it isn't the whole story.
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.
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.
-Finkenkeller 8-]
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)?
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.
even harshly negative propaganda like pinpointing the enemy?
Even if we recognize propaganda as a bad thing, which I do not, it cannot be banned under the free speach provision of our COnstitution. A politician has the right to say what he wants to to win the campaign. THe only thing that caN be done about this is for the targets of propaganda to be conscious of misleading propaganda. Another thing to be conscious of is that provacative propaganda does encourage voter participation, though it may be for all of the wrong reasons.
YeS athorp is right the constitution states that peOple have the freedom of speech. Think if what would happen if politicians didnt use propaganda. It would be much harder to vote. Also like george w bush he used a insinuation propaganda which caused him to gain more voters
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.
-Finkenkeller 8-]
yes I agree we should think about what the person is trying to do with their propaganda before we make our decision. Personally I don't want to vote for someone who just wants to tear other people down like they did in some of the videos. But it is true that it encourages people to vote, and I suppose that's a good thing even if it is for the wrong reasons.
Athorp is right. Even though some people may want propaganda outlawed, that would be a violation of (i believe its the first) amendment. I am not sure, however, if limiting the propaganda used would also be a violation….
That's a good point. Although I said that we should not allow propaganda, but none of my reasons can combat the constitution. Although propaganda is often misleading, and some aside of the truth, free speech is right. It is much more important to protect the rights of citizens.
Adam, you are correct in some regard… however, does free speech give me the right to misrepresent myself OR (even worse) misrepresent others?
What I have to say is this: Without proganda and persuation, our lives today would be a lot simpler. You could hear both sides of an argument, instead of listening to constant card-stacking. You could know that the quthorities appealed to are qualified to make important decisions. During campaigns, voters have a right to the truth. They should be able to know exactly who they're voting for, and should be able to know the reprecussions (both positive and negative) of voting for that person. The intense amount of propaganda employed today makes it near impossible to seperate fact from fiction, from transfer to insinuation. It is almost beyond hope that we would have a campaign devoid of propaganda; any statements as to what the candidate stands for would be card-stacking, no arguments against the other person would pass without becoming name-calling. The citizens must realize for themselves the dangers of the propaganda whirlpool.
It's Devi Acharya. Read this post well.
You are right. Propaganda would not be so much of an issue if the people were more informed. Citizens need to know the danger of propaganda, and not be so easily swayed. I have seen many people drive down the road and buy something because of a billboard. If people were not so easy to sway with jingles and rhymes, propaganda would take on a new role in society, and actually be more enjoyable to watch.
I believe that propaganda definitely should be allowed during political campaigns. As Shawn said, its the easiest way to get their messages across to the public. If we made this illegal, how would they show everyone what they believe in? We might as well vote blindfolded. However despite my previous statement, I think restrictions should be placed on how much politicians can spend on propaganda throughout their campaign. I mean, the amount they spend nowadays is ridiculous.
I agree that the amount of money being spent on propaganda is way too much, and should be limited. The problem comes when you have to try and distinguish between spending on propaganda and on 'other' things. As the videos show, much of just getting your ideas out there is soaked with propaganda. What do you propose to do to limit propaganda expenses?
It's Devi Acharya. Read this post well.
Well I think instead of having the tax money 'pool' type thing, a certain amount of money should be given to each party, and lower limits should be out on the amount of money an individual or PAC cangive to a campaign. Also I believe candidates should not be able to use money out of their own pockets in the event one person is super rich while the other is not.
I agree with having a set limit on the money that can be used in propaganda. That may be considered hinderance of free speech, however. This is a good idea though. I do not think, on a side note, that tax money should be used for propaganda. If that was taken out of the equation, tax dollars could be used toward something more important, ike schooling.
yea i was thinking that when i was watching the movies because there should be a certain amount of money that they should be able to have for propaganda because if a person is richer they can get a lot better things for propaganda. Also i don't think that's fair because then one candidate well get more votes then others
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.
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.
Ellie you say that we should not make propaganda illegal. We wouldn't make it illegal there just would be none during debates. So you could still have propaganda everywhere just not where you were debating. So I think we should get rid of propaganda in debate rooms so you can focus on what the person has to say not what he is going to hide behind.
Hoben
How do you intend on preventing someone from saying "God Bless America" during a debate?
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?
I personally see propaganda as a way for politicians to have a fightinf chance against their opponents. Propaganda tends to, in my opinion, make a race more challenging and fun to watch. I see the problems in name calling, however. Running a smear campaign and trying to put down an opponent should be banned. It shows no class or dignity. Other forms of propaganda (not similar to name calling) should be allowed.
The problem is when you say
I personally see propaganda as a way for politicians to have a fightinf chance against their opponents.
The only way for you to have a chance of willing a campaign through propaganda is if you have money. You have to pay for tv and newspaper ads, you have to pay to have rallies… And this causes big parties to drown out the smaller ones with propaganda all because they have more money.
It's Devi Acharya. Read this post well.
I believe that politics should be allowed to use propaganda in their advertisements because it shows how they are going to make life better and what there going to do to improve it. I will post the rest laater
I also agree with you. However, not only does propaganda show how candidates are going to make life better, but it also allows the candidates to express their opinion. It gives them a chance to persuade the voters. Which is important
I think that propaganda should be used in political campaigns, this is because propaganda is the main way politicians get the their supporters, by making themselves look good or by making the opposition look bad. If propaganda is taken away from political campaigns then people will only hear from the politicians when there is a debate or when there is a rally.
If you are saying all types of propaganda should be allowed, what if the candidates use of propaganda creates a feud between him and other candidates? Most people may vote for who wins the feud. Instead of, who has the best ideas, and will be able to make their ideas happen. Also, the money spent on propaganda nowadays is ridiculous, this money could be spent on other important things, maybe things that will actually help the citizens, do you think there should be a spending limit?
I disagree. Propaganda is often misleading to viewers, as it only shows the good sides of the politician's views. It would be much better if no politicians could use propaganda, and could only state the whole truth, good and bad. That way, all politicians would have a fair running, and no fact would be left out.
I believe politicians should be allowed to use propaganda because it helps them get their point across. On the other hand, propaganda could trick someone into voting for the person they truly do not want in office. For example, in Bill Clinton's propaganda video, he used "economists" to back him up and say his plan was "The best hope for reviving the nation's economy". Because of this video, now some people have been tricked into trusting the "economists'" opinions and will vote for Bill Clinton.
i agree with you Royce, i do think that with propaganda it could confuse people and citizens think they want someone in office when they really don't because its a lie. Then i have to think that normally people have to be smart enough to realize whats true and whats not. which America tends not to have that much of
I agree with you my brother on the first point you made. However, I believe that voters are smart enough to tell what is right and what is wrong. Meaning that the voters will be smart enough to know which candidate is the best because just one commercial does not convince a voter automatically. In order for the voters to become convinced, they have to pay attention to other things that the candidate does. Such as, watching the debates. In the example you used how do you know that people have been tricked? How makes you think that?
I do think that propaganda should be used in political campaigns. It exercises a candidate's right to free speech, and it also is a huge way that candidates get their views and opininons across. Just because a candidate spends a ton of amount of money on expensive commericals, it does not mean that they will win. Propaganda is also a good way for voters to learn the facts about the person they are voting for, and in some cases, it might even cause a change of opinion in the voter. For example, in George Busch campain, he used a TON of propaganda to go against Bill Clinton, but still lost. John Kerry had a very 'touching' commercial, but it was not enough to convince voters to vote for him as president. Propaganda is a good idea to help voters seperate opinions from facts and make the right decision for the candidate they believe in.
END. :]
