With instructions that explicitly explained what each paragraph should do, it was difficult to find room to voice my own opinion. I also found the instructions to be quite contradictory with the results that the instructors were looking for. The first paragraph instructions state:
“Your introduction should describe your general opinions and observations about the relationship between the media and society, and the importance of systematic analysis of media effects. Focus on the concepts you learned in class and section. It is OK to take one side or the other as long as you can back yourself up in your paper, e.g. “the media has a profound effect on society Length: 1 paragraph” ( 2012).
During lecture, our professor clarified the directions by telling the class that we must include some element of creativity to set ourselves apart in order to earn a successful grade. With such a dry and mandated topic, I tried my best to incorporate some level of originality. My introduction says:
“The names of these political ads seem to tell the story of what thoughts crossed my mind while watching the ads: I’m Growing Up (2012c), so this is the first election in which I can vote. I have One Chance (2012b)to make this decision. So, The Question (2012a) becomes who to vote for. But these ads on every channel? Give Me A Break (2012d). Based on my age, hometown, and personal beliefs, certain commercials had different media effects on me. Although the effects of such commercials vary based on the individual, it can still be presumed that do have a profound effect on society in their entirety” (Lisner 2012).
While writing this, I believed that I was telling the teacher what he wanted to hear. I did claim that the commercials had media effects on me, and said that this could be translated onto a societal level. The one piece of my introduction that I was proud of was the incorporation of the names of commercials in context to the paper. I thought that this inventiveness would set my paper apart in the creative aspect that the instructor emphasized. However, when I received my paper back with comments from my GSI he said: “Very creative! Although, I’m not sure this is completely appropriate for this style of writing” (GSI 2012). This comment filled me with confusion—what exactly is appropriate for this style of writing? This vagueness seemed contradictory to the original instructions, which I believed that I followed fairly well. My true opinion or thesis if given the opportunity would be that: these commercials filled me with an overall disgust for politics, and I could not even watch them and keep a straight face. However, we were not allowed to voice our political view or opinion, instead we had to focus on the media effects that we experienced. In my opinion, it is nearly impossible to not have these to mediums become intertwined. The effects that I felt while watching were a result of my political affiliation, but I was not able to include this in my paper.
The following three paragraphs had to address specific media dimensions and must demonstrate what effects were experienced from both Romney and Obama’s ads. The first paragraph focused on cognitive/affective/behavioral; content-dependent/content-irrelevant; and micro effects. In only one short paragraph we were expected to touch on all of the effects mentioned, which I found to be challenging to do effectively. While discussing Obama’s commercial “One Chance” I claimed:
“The commercial uses a powerful image of the New York Fire Department as they celebrate the victory. This scene provided me with a sense of patriotism and helped me feel connected to my country, and was also filled with emotion as I remembered how scared and confused I was when I experienced 9/11 as an elementary aged child (Lisner 2012). “
I explained that this was a micro or individualized effect, because of the individual memories and feelings that I felt while watching the ad. It was not an option to write that I did not experience a micro effect at all, so I had to lie in order to fulfill the prompt. In actuality, I thought it was manipulative of the media to select a positive and unifying photograph from 9/11 to distract viewers from the actual horror that took place. I was also confused why Barack Obama would use an image of the New York Fire Department after 9/11 when he was not even in office at the time. However, my opinions would not have been appropriate to insert. The only feedback that I received on paragraph one was “Excellent” so in some sense my skewed words felt justified.
Among other effects, the second paragraph focused on intended versus unintended media effects. The intended effects seemed painfully obvious—to gain viewers votes. I stated this fairly straightforwardly:
“Regardless of their party, Obama and Romney have the same motives and intentions with their ads—to convince viewers that they are the best presidential candidate. Both Obama’s The Question (2012a) and Romney’s Give Me A Break (2012d) have the same intended effects, as both their intentions are to show why they are not only the best candidate for president, but also why they are better than their opponent” (Lisner).
Thankfully, the prompt did not ask if these intended media effects were successful because it would take a lot more than a thirty second scripted commercial to gain my vote. However the instructor provided me with this commentary:
“Excellent discussion here. However, above this you mention that viewers will experience intended effects, convincing viewers they are the best candidate. Was this case for you? Also, don’t you think the candidates want these ads to cause effects that will at least last until November when people vote” (GSI).
In all honesty, I do not think that most voters watch a commercial and then completely change their political views. Thus, I find it hard to believe that the candidates believe that the commercial will produce media effects that will last until November. Instead of including more enlightening conversation about the actual content of the commercials and the truths or falsities that may be embedded in it, we had to focus on how these ads made us feel or react. Personally, my paper morally suffered from the shallow and generic conversation that was included. This paper was neither argumentative nor persuasive or creative. I had a difficult time grasping what was expected of me, and apparently did not understand what level of creativity was appropriate in this avenue of writing.
Perhaps the most honest portion of my second paragraph was when I said that these commercials: “truly exhibits short-term effects, because quite honestly after reading it, I got bored and went on to Facebook, proving that it is not an enduring or long-term effect” (Lisner 2012). Here, I was actually quite candid as I explained that these commercials prompted me to do some of my own “fact-checking” or research about the issues and arguments that both candidates presented. While I did go on Facebook after a short period of time, I am not entirely sure that it was due to boredom. After more reflection, I think I began to feel overwhelmed and frustrated with the lack of knowledge that I simply did not know. While I wished that there were a simple “yes” or “no” answer to the questions that I wondered about each candidate’s commercials, there did not appear to be a straightforward truth. Instead, I was exposed to a plethora of information, which left me more confused and repelled than before. While re-reading my essay, I actually became disappointed with myself because even my most “truthful” part of the paragraph turned out to be misleading.
The third and final body paragraph was just as regimented as the others as the instructions stated: “The third paragraph should analyze one or two ads that you discussed in the previous paragraphs according to these dimensions: macro and long-term” (2012). Macro effects refer to media effects that can be seen in a large population as opposed to an individualized basis, which long-term effects obviously is effects that a person experiences for an extended duration of time. My example for macro effect was:
“Viewers can see a macro affect in the use of former president Bill Clintons narration of Barack Obama’s One Chance (2012b). Since Bill Clinton only held office up until my elementary school ages, his opinions on Barack Obama do not affect mine. However, the majority of voters in 2012 were voting citizens at the time Bill Clinton held office. While his narration means little to me, it is with general postulation that this commentary will have a macro affect on the general voting population” (Lisner 2012).
While this is probably a significant argument, I did seem to exclude the confusion I felt when both candidates used Bill Clinton to better their campaign. While Barack Obama used clips of Clinton that directly stated his positive affirmations to the president, Mitt Romney used clips of Clinton from 2004 demonstrate that Clinton did not always endorse Obama for president. Romney’s use of these clips was completely out of context; as at the time his focus was on his wife Hillary Clintons, campaign. I wish this assignment allowed students to use more critical analysis while watching these commercials instead of focusing on superficial “feelings” that we apparently experienced.
Lastly, the conclusion paragraph’s direction allowed for some synthesis and personal opinion, but was limited to one paragraph due to the three-page limit. The directions stated:
“Summarize your findings and discuss their implications in terms of their magnitude, limitations, positive and negative forces, or any other issues that you think are important. Your conclusions should be related to the findings expressed in the paragraphs about your media exposures” (2012).
While the directions did allow us to include any other issues that we believe are important, this was only limited to one small conclusion paragraph. There were many issues that I believe are important, as mentioned through my analysis of prior paragraphs. However, it would not do these issues justice to be revealed so briefly with no description and analysis. The aim of this assignment was to ensure that students had a grasp on the media effects and could recognize the how they are personally effected. This did not leave room for any criticism of the media or politics and would not have been relevant to my “argument” or thesis statement. Much to my own disproval I wrote:
“The more exposure I have to political ads, the more confused I become about my own beliefs, which show that these political ads mainly have cognitive and affective effects because they get me anticipating the upcoming election. Political ads have One Chance to evoke media effects, so The Question is—what will you believe? “(Lisner 2012).
In actuality, my conclusion was false. I did not become more confused about my own beliefs; I became more confused how political campaign parties believe that this is effective. The only reason the ads get me to anticipate the upcoming election is so I can stop being surrounded by these commercials filled with “propaganda”. This conclusion was challenging to me because I felt like it was my opportunity to address the issues that I longed to throughout the paper, but instead I took the easy way out.
I received a B- on this essay, which disappointed me because I believed that I wrote what the teacher wanted to hear. In the process of writing with hopes of earning a good grade, I lost sight of my own opinions and standards. If I would have written this essay with one hundred percent honesty, I may or may not have earned a worse grade, but at least I could have produced something that I am proud of. Not only did this assignment cause me to be hard on myself, but it also made me question my major of communications. I want to select a major that encourages critical and analytic thinking and promotes creativity. Each day that I attend my Writing 22 class, I find myself thinking about issues that have never crossed my mind before. Furthermore, it has given me a new perspective on my academic future. It is my hope that I can find a major that compliments and further pushes me in this direction.
This assignment had serious potential to get me to think critically about political advertising, but due to the rigidness of the assignment I was unable to explore it with depth and critical attention that it deserves. I felt disgust towards the advertisements that I watched, but it was unclear where this disgust originated. Am I disgusted with politics or with political advertising? After writing this paper, I am even further from answering this question. I wish that this assignment would have pushed me to recognize and examine the relationship between politics and political advertising, but instead I am filled with confusion. It is not my grade on this paper that frustrates me the most, but rather the missed learning opportunity.
The timing of this assignment could not have been more appropriate. We were examining commercials right before the presidential election, so it was especially current and engaging. This assignment not only had the chance to educate students on the communication terminology and tools that were strategically placed within these commercials, but also could have assisted students with discerning motives and truths behind these commercials. Most students in the class are of age to participate in the election and may also be the most vulnerable to TV commercials. This assignment could have forced students to examine the ads with a more critical eye. While I certainly am not proud of the paper that I originally produced, this re-purposing assignment has taught me that ever assignment can have value if we are given the appropriate avenue to explore it.
]]>