Book Review, Part II: Tom Tancredo For President of Glassy Eyes

I don't know which 24-hour news channel I was watching yesterday, but Tom Tancredo's new campaign spot was highlighted for its fear mongering and a desperate attempt to say, "hey, look at me, I'm running for president- no really, I am- my name's Tom, and I have serial killer eyes."*

Well, maybe journalists would be hesitant to call them serial killer eyes- that's rank speculation, something they know nothing about- but they did identify the desperate grab for attention for what it was, since most people have no idea who Tom Tancredo is. Not exactly a novel revelation, since most campaign ads are grabs for attention. But this one really does stick out, see for yourself:



Why is this disturbing?

Americans already confuse Iraq with Iran with Afghanistan with North Korea with Pakistan; hell, they can't even locate their own country on a map (unless, of course, they think the whole world is America). In talking about our "open borders," Tancredo is implying that Mexicans are Islamic terrorists.

You know what, I'm just going to go ahead and say it: Mexico was responsible for 9/11.

Shit, did I say Mexico? I meant Canada.

Shit, did I say Canada? I meant France.

Shit, did I say France? I meant...France.**

What else is disturbing about Tancredo's irresponsible ad? Well, it is "illegal to censor a candidate's political ad," and must be aired "even if a station...[knows it to be] unfair, factually inaccurate, or offensive" (Interplay of Influence 288-290). This is not to say that Tancredo is the only political candidate ever to air an offensive or inaccurate ad- plenty have, can you say Swift Boat? But what the hell?! This requires Americans to investigate on their own the allegations of campaign ads, but, given that most Americans don't know where their country is on a map, this is highly doubtful.

If candidates are sold like products, as Interplay of Influence claims, then their advertisements should be held to the same standards as consumer products. Wild allegations must be proven. In fact, there should be some product labeling. Instead of calories and trans fats, maybe we should measure bullshit and hypocrisy, creepiness. Then maybe we'd know what we were getting ourselves into.

For example:

George W. Bush
Age: 61
Ingredients: horse shit, crude oil, born-again Christian hypocrisy (hypoChristian?), puppy dog tails, that pretzel he choked on in 2002, nepotism, marbles.

It would make everything a whole lot easier.

-----------------------

*I once worked with this guy whom we called Serial Killer, SK for short. He had this incredibly creepy lurking problem. Like, you'd look up and he's staring at you silently. You look away for a split second and then he's gone.
**I don't mean it, Julie!

Book Review, Condensed Version

The “Interplay of Influence,” is a textbook written by Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, who shares my name, albeit spelled differently. The work is divided into essentially three themes: news media, advertising, and politics. Jamieson and Campbell list the ways in which all three are persuasive and can be persuaded, and debunk many theories and myths about each. I intend to focus on television advertising here, because it was the section that provoked the most thought for me, since I grew up in a television-saturated society and can remember jingles better than I can sometimes remember salient news events. This does not mean, however, that only young people are afflicted with the jingles burned to their brains. Ask anyone, nearly anywhere, and they'll remember this:



Why is it that we don't know anything about world events, yet we can sing the Oscar Meyer song half-asleep? This is precisely what Jamieson and Campbell examine. In identifying various (cheap) ploys advertisers utilize, we can see advertisements for what they really are: emotional manipulations for the purpose of profit.

We would all probably like to think others are more affected by advertisements. This phenomenon is well-documented; the “third person effect” has its roots in psychology, where we think we are superior to others in intellect and moral character. If we accept the fact that we are all affected by advertising, we can begin to examine how advertisements work, which tactics they employ, and how to counteract the focus group-tested messages companies spend millions to communicate.

Advertising preys on the ignorant, the unsure, the lonely, and the guilty, among others. Advertising strategies employed bank on deliberate vagueness and tricky grammar to mislead consumers into thinking that the advertised product favorably compares with other products, is touted by “experts,” or is backed by (unintelligible) research. Advertisers also employ the emotional and primal needs of consumers- if Mom didn’t make you a Skippy Peanut Butter sandwich, she doesn’t love you. At all. Advertisements also create associations that do not exist. Exactly what nutritional role does your sugar-coated corn-flaked cereal play in a balanced breakfast? Advertising makes false claims, especially when it comes to sex appeal. I’m pretty sure Axe Body Spray smells like a pubescent boy at a middle-school dance, yet commercials for the product show grown women making up their own porn soundtracks and literally throwing themselves at men who wear Axe. Gro-oss.



I’ve noticed especially, even without Jamieson and Campbell’s identification, the trend of companies reverting to old ads to evoke fond memories of the good ol’ days. Orville Redenbacher Popcorn has been re-airing what seem to be original 1970s ads with new graphics. I also noticed recently at my bus stop a poster which featured old-school popcorn poppers comparing the time-tested lightness and fluffiness of Redenbacher to the “ordinary” brands. In fact, Redenbacher has employed this evocative strategy for quite some time now, and there is a wealth of material on YouTube.



Which brings me to my next point: advertisements are so pervasive in our society that we devote entire television broadcasts to the “funniest” and the “sexiest.” Granted, it’s on TBS, but still. The line is blurring between entertainment programs and advertisements, to the point where we are making advertising our entertainment. What does this say about us? It seems to confirm our reliance consumer-based society. It’s driving us to “brand” everything about our lives. Even the Golden Gate Bridge was up for sponsorship. Pretty soon the University of Washington will be renamed Starbucks U.

I only hope they give out free coffee.

Mmmm, coffee.