My overall topic through the first
two blog posts has been education.
There have been many advertisements concerning education because it’s a
topic that people care and feel strongly about in most cases. In this case, I chose an older
advertisement from Maryland
Governor Martin O’Malley’s 2006 campaign. In this blog we will take a look at what type of
advertisement it is. For example,
is it praising the candidate, condemning the opponent, or responding to
charges? We will also focus on the
different ways the advertisement engages its audience by utilizing ethos,
pathos, or logos. Finally, we will
be analyzing how the ad engages in the figures of speech and rhetorical
fallacies.
1. To
start, the ad is obviously only a 30 second spot. However, that does not mean it didn’t have an adequate amount
of content. There are basically
three categories of political advertisements that Trent, Friedenberg, and Denton
have outlined for us: praising the candidate, condemning the opponent, or
responding to charges. Many ads,
including this one will, utilize more than one category in the same 30-second spot. This ad chooses to have the first half
condemning his opponent, which in this particular race is incumbent Bob
Ehrlich. He talks about three big
ways that Ehrlich has ruined college education in Maryland. This can be very effective because the
audience listens to this ad and now Ehrlich’s name is associated with having a
bad plan for education. Then, he
gets around to praising himself in the second half of the ad. He gives three main points about what
his plan involves for getting the education system of Maryland back on
track. This is the second category
that he uses in just this one short 30-second advertisement, and it’s very
effective because not only does he get to bash the incumbent’s failed
strategies in the beginning of the ad, he gets to follow up and tell people
what he will do differently.
People like to hear what a politicians specific plans are, and he does
that in this ad directed at education.
2. Politicians
favor emotional appeals when it comes to advertising. Education is one of those topics they will use to tug on the
heartstrings of parents and even students. Obviously those two groups of people want the best education
possible and so does pretty much everyone. So, when people hear an ad of a candidate outlining their
plan for education they get stirred up and will more likely become engaged. O’Malley chooses to focus much of this
ad on pathos appeals. As Joseph
Tuman says, “This is the speech rhetoric that persuades and affects an audience
because it appeals to them on an emotional level” (67). As I’ve said, appealing to people’s
emotions may be the single strongest way to engage an audience. Another part of the ad that may affect
more of the audience’s sub-conscience is the music. We listen to music for an emotional boost sometimes,
right? Ads do that same type of
thing; they will use music to actually tell us how to feel at different points. For example, listen to the music in the
first half of the ad and compare it to the music in the second half. The music starts out like something out
of the Pink Panther. Meaning it
was very “prancy” and seeming like something bad was happening. Then, when they started praising him,
the music instantly changed to be a pleasant, flowing piano sound. That change in music is supposed to be
a subtle emotional or pathos appeal.
It is very effective in movies and TV shows, so that is why they use
musical effect in ads as well. He
doesn’t utilize ethos, and only uses one logos appeal, which is actually somewhat
predictable. For one, the ad
doesn’t have the length of a 15-minute speech; there is not enough time to get
to all three appeals in one short 30-second spot. However, he does use that 40% statistic in the first half of
his ad. Statistics scream out
“logical appeal.” So, yes, he does
technically have two of the three appeals represented in his ad. However, this ad was mainly meant to
reach families and young adults in an emotional way and that is exactly what it
accomplishes.
3. The
main figure of speech that is utilized in this ad is accumulation. This
happens when two or more clauses are said in succession, stating basically the
same thing, in order to emphasize a point. In the ad, when he was praising himself in the second half
it says he wants to, “Freeze Tuition, Increase Scholarships, and Expand Opportunity.” Now, essentially all those things fall
under a broader topic of making the education system better in Maryland. Another figure of speech that is used
in this ad is an example. This is another one of the most common
figures of speech, which means it is also one of the most effective. An example is pretty self-explanatory;
it means that the ad refers to a specific example from the past. In this ad there is one specific
example that he uses to bash his opponent. It says, “Under this Governor, college tuition has increased
by over 40%.” This has a big
impact on people, making it very effective. Like I previously stated, it will make people associate
“this Governor” (meaning Ehrlich) with an increasing college tuition wreaking
havoc on the young adults of Maryland.
4. Rhetorical
fallacies are used by almost everyone in politics. However, they can be very flawed sometimes. In this case, the fallacy of questionable statistics is being utilized. I’ve already talked about that 40% stat
that is used to bash his opponent.
Again, the ad was saying that college tuition has increased 40% under
the current Governor. However,
college tuition has been on the rise all throughout the country. The ad never says if it was up 40% in
just Maryland or not. So, that is
where this fallacious statement is flawed, but they still choose to put it in
the ad because they know a lot of people will take that as absolute fact. Since, the ad is only 30-seconds I
don’t think there are any other fallacies present.
Political
ads rule the airwaves for a long period of time leading up to major
elections. As we’ve learned they
are very calculated. They look at
what category they are going to fulfill, what rhetorical appeals they are going
to make, what figures of speech and rhetorical fallacies they are going to
employ. And by the way, Martin
O’Malley won this 2006 election over the incumbent Bob Ehrlich for Governor of
Maryland.
I'm glad you identified yours falling into multiple categories. I fell into the trap of thinking that I had to pick one category. I guess I based my decision on which the ad did more of, regardless I liked that you did what you did with yours
ReplyDeleteI like how you showed both sides in the ad. One side condemning the opponent, and then praising himself..which happens often in political advertisement. The classic good cop and bad guy syndrome. His fallacy is important too, since most automatically assume the stat is correct just because it's in an ad.
ReplyDeleteI quite enjoy how you went about identifying each category. It definitely made everything easier to follow and shows more than one side to the ad. Well done, Andy!
ReplyDeleteI wonder if using both condemnation and praise in one 30 second spot made the ad more acceptable to audiences. Although negative ads are known to work, everyone claims to hate them. This ad adopts a little bit of both, as you observed. It also came across as a logical argument when really,it was very emotional both in the narrative and on-screen action.
ReplyDelete