2014 Election

This week we in Mass Media Politics we took an in depth look into political advertisements. The four principles of political advertising that West mentions are stereotyping, association, demonization, and code words. Stereotyping refers to a common portrait or oversimplified judgment that people hold toward groups or sets of individuals. Association refers to linking a candidate or cause to some other idea or person. Demonizing is the process of turning an opponent into an evil being or satanic figure. Code words are words used to play on common stereotypes, using particular language. Since the campaigning has not seriously began for the 2016 presidential election I started to think about the elections in this November. So I took a look into some of the ads in Georgia for governor. What type of political advertising are they using? Is it effective?

 

Jason Carter 

Nathan Deal 

Same Language

CNN recently did an exclusive interview with the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsy. In his interview he talked heavily about ISIS and the statements he made were very concerning to me. In previous weeks I have talked about Middle East fatigue and the feelings of dread and exhaustion that immediately comes when even the topic of the Middle East is brought on. The report that came from Dempsy in no meaningful way, relieved any worries, to even a casual observer of military involvement in the Middle East.

I believe Dempsy is aware that the rhetoric he chooses to use at any time can become extremely controversial and would take a majority of the headlines. Because of this I believe Dempsy is trying to reassure that troops on the ground is not necessary. I still think his words at face value because of what I am actually seeing from ISIS. The same night the report goes out CNN has another one saying that ISIS has gained more ground in Iraq and is preparing another attack.  Isis is still rapidly spreading across the world, and more and more ISIS beheading are happening across nations around the world. How can he be so sure that our military strategy is enough? I understand other nations are donating us troops, butis it possible we need all hands on deck?

Hong Kong Protests

I found a very interesting article about the protests in Hong Kong, and instead of criticizing China he took an interesting perspective. The protest are a result from China’s decision to pick the candidates for the next Hong Kong election. Hong Kong is regarded as one if the freest countries in the world, regarding both its civil rights and their free enterprise economic system. China definitely has a history of supporting civil rights and in general has a reputation of being a brutal country with its people. So naturally the protests in Hong Kong has capture the attention of the world, and China has surprised many. The police have not retaliated against the protesters, which many people are starting to take it as a positive sign for the people of China.

            After looking at the protests in China it never occurred to me to compare this protest to the recent ones in America, which is why I believe the article in the Kentucky Kernel brings up an interesting point. The author of this article Matt Young compares the Hong Kong protest to the Ferguson Missouri one. He describes the reaction to the Ferguson protest as,” we saw crackdowns against the protestors’ free speech, and not in any insignificant way. Police in riot gear or worse, military gear reacted to the protests with excessive hostility. Assault rifles, tear gas, dogs and even mine-resistant armored personnel carriers were used.

What do you guys think should we take this as an outlier or should we be extremely concerned?

http://kykernel.com/2014/10/12/u-s-should-value-free-speech/