Got attack ads?

I think it's safe to say that the political ads between Michelle Nunn and David Perdue have gotten rather personal.

Nonetheless, they are without a doubt entertaining. David Perdue recently aired an ad with women talking about how Michelle Nunn fails to address any true political points, and how she consistently sides with President Obama. What was a priceless "retaliation" from Michelle Nunn was when she was trying to explain Perdue's ad, and still didn't actually address any of the concerns expressed by the women in Perdue's ad. It seems Perdue really holds the upper hand in terms of political advertising, and Nunn's party is just trying to explain everything Perdue is saying. More so, Nunn went on to talk about how she could "work with all parties, Republican's and Democrats." What truly makes me wonder about these ads, is does Nunn actually have a policy? Does she have a policy that she knows won't contend with Perdue, which is why she refuses to address these points through advertising? It seems relatively consistent that Perdue is straight forward with the tasks he wants to accomplish, yet Nunn is shying away from holding any true points of relevance. Needless to say, being passive won't win elections; being passive is actually proving Perdue's points even better.

Ad links:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9UHRD4QoMg&list=UUyHalTHvVcAbfRJtUDeTpWg

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB11dMrnY-U&index=4&list=UUpzou54VsjG3Os9WCuPyFug

Between Two Ferns: Obamacare

"Between Two Ferns" with Zach Galifinakis hosted President Obama during the roll-out of the infamous Affordable Care Act or better known Obama Care health plan. Without a doubt, President's go above and beyond to advertise policy, but there was nothing like the advertising of Obamacare. In all seriousness, as important and dramatic the policy was, President Obama thought hosting an "interview" on a comedy show would be a good way to explain the policy.

Because it's just hilarious to have people laughing about something so serious, all sarcasm intended. "Between Two Ferns" wasn't the only way Obamacare was advertised, and certainly not the only station that was eager to report it. The original plan which began in 2010, was highly unknown and many were unaware of what exactly the policy contained. Even after implementation, many have no idea what the policy truly entails; however, the small clauses that went unreported are now coming to life. The media really is to thank for the awareness of Obamacare, and really, the positive attention boosted support dramatically. Regardless of personal belief on the bill, it is obvious that pro-policy supporters really went above and beyond to make Obamacare the center of attention for many years. Even post-implementation, there is still nearly constant attention on Obamacare. It was honestly handled in such a way, that supporters went after every group possible, through many different channels. With Between Two Ferns, they attracted a younger, less political viewing audience. With coverage and interviews on CNN, and more news-based media, they gained attention from a more politically focused, older group of voters. At the end of the day, the media campaign of Obamacare was probably the most successful of any roll-out policy, even if the policy sucked entirely. Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnW3xkHxIEQ

Ferguson Information Cascade

We all know that a massive distrust of police has begun to erupt in recent times. We’ve all seen the videos of young people testing the power and authority of police forces, and subsequently posting them on social media (Morozov's "Digital civic infrastructure) where the videos run rampant with viewers. Everyone knows the police can and will over exert their power on occasion; but what makes it quite interesting, is when an information cascade begins, as seen with the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

People from all over joined to protest the officer’s actions when he shot and killed the 18 year old. But did even half of these people actually know what happened? Did anyone actually witness the events leading up to the shooting? The answer is no. And speculations ran wild. So wild, in fact, that protestors became violent, threatening the life of the officer; without even knowing the details of the story. In fact, I can personally say I heard about 9 different versions. First, I was outraged that the cops seemed to have shot the young man in cold blood. Then, as details emerged, it seemed the young man may have robbed a local store, which prompted police action (which made me feel less outraged). Next, we heard there was a struggle for the officer’s gun, which is why the officer shot at Brown. So, what actually was the truth? No one really knew, but as protests and racial tensions spurred, people seemed to forget entirely that the details had not yet been released. They forgot everything they might believe had happened, and stood in the streets, ridiculing the officer’s actions, calling him a murderer. Did the protestors actually believe this? Or was it just a way to point out an overall situation in which people believe police are all power hungry murderers? In some ways, I felt bad for the officers. You know, even the ones who did absolutely nothing wrong and were still being threatened because they worked for the same police force. In some ways, I felt bad for the protestors, because they stood so valiantly, and were protesting for good purpose. But more than either of those, I was confused, deeply confused. How do people just start mass riots without even knowing what happened? It’s crazy how people will believe the first side they hear, and forget what their gut is actually telling them. Nonetheless, information cascades will always occur as long as the media reports one fact at a time, without telling the whole story.

International Access to U.S Media

The United States is like the 6'4 220 pound linebacker that runs a 4.4; everyone wants him on their side. With capabilities that the U.S. possesses, you can't blame everyone for wanting the United States to help out when they need it, because really, who else would you rather have on your team? Except the U.S. doesn't always show up as hoped. When Venezuelan protests became fatal, and cops and military began killing protesters on the streets, the Venezuelan's screamed for the help of the U.S. Young college students erupted with social media campaigns to expose the brutality, the horrific tragedy that was taking place in their country. A Venezuelan native who moved to the U.S. when she was young, was probably the most famous of all social media videos. The young woman showed pictures of some of the fallen protestors whom had been shot by the police. She begged, pleaded, and shouted for help from the U.S., but she was met with nothing. In fact, the Venezuelan crisis was never really addressed by the American media at all. I guess she just didn't make the video horrific enough to insight fear. One video that did insight fear was when a member of ISIS was captured beheading an American journalist. ISIS then sent the video to U.S. officials to basically piss them off, and tell them to stay out of Syria. Bad move ISIS. You see, we don't really care as citizens, unless the media cares. 99% of the nation didn't even know this journalist was kidnapped to begin with, but god forbid when we find out.. Nonetheless, soon after we saw an almost immediate response by the U.S. We saw air strikes begin, and we saw large-scale discussions within the United Nations. It's funny isn't it? How one video can spark a war, how a desperate plea can go unheard, how videos are the way we discover that crises are actually happening around the world. But without the videos, the United States wouldn't be as willing to get involved abroad. The videos have a unique way of sharing the truth, with picture and sound that actually make it real to us.