Figured with so many new commercials being aired in the last couple weeks, I couldn't leave for election day without throwing up a few more clips for your pre-election enjoyment...
From the No on 8 campaign: Who can go wrong with a little Samuel Jackson? Hits hard on the "proposition 8 is discriminatory" note, arguably better than earlier ads attempting the same thing. I was about to say that I thought that the NO on 8 campaign had finally simplified it's message...but of course the motto of "unfair, uneccessary, wrong" was chopped into just "unfair, wrong" for this commercial. I suppose I will never stop complaining about the lack of a single uniform message from the No campaign.
From the Yes on 8 campaign:An ad in which viewers hear the voice over of a heterosexual married couple talking about the implications of legalized gay marriage on the public school system. A powerful ad, especially with the mention of the fact that both presidental candidates do not support gay marriage...but in my partisan bias, it made me kind of sick to my stomach. That, and I hate the world "tolerate" being using when talking about LGBT people/
And finally, just because I love Ellen:
Happy voting everyone! Please, if you are registered to vote in California, don't forget to vote on this issue! This is an issue where your vote WILL make a difference. Vote No on Proposition 8!
In the last week, the No on Prop 8 campaign has come out with two new commercials. Though I wish I could say otherwise, they are not that effective. Maybe I've simply become extremely critical since I tend to watch a lot of political ads...but aren't all voters becoming ad-fatigued with less than 3 weeks before the election? Surely the ads need to become snappier, and more hard hitting?
The first commercial up for dissection is the "Lies" ad. Of the two ads, this is my least favorite. The commercial starts off with a bunch of TVs playing the protectmarriage.com ads, (including the most recent), while a voice over declares their statements to be false. The problem with this commercial, is that there is too much going on. I was too busy looking at all the different TVs, and was not paying that much attention to the voice over. If the No on Prop 8 campaign felt that their best tactic was to play defense, (I don't think it is), then why couldn't create a more compelling ad? A little blurb after the TVs part tells the viewer to "keep government out of all our lives" and vote no on prop 8. This is clearly an attempt to reach out to more conservative voters...but what does it have to do with refuting the "lies" of the Yes on 8 campaign? The ad wasn't talking about government entanglement up to this point. All in all, I think the commercial is a failure. With little emotional punch or consistent message, it is an ad viewers won't remember.
The second ad is a little better, though still not good enough in my opinion. The "Unfair, unnecessary, and wrong" ad simply displays quotes from various groups speaking out against Prop 8, with NO on 8 prominently displayed in large letters throughout the commercial. It is not so much that it is a -bad- commercial, I just think it is weak. Gay marriage is such an emotionally charged issue...what happened the commercials that tapped this? The earlier ads "Meet the Thorons" and the ad from Let Freedom Ring released over the summer which much more powerful than this ad. As mentioned earlier, considering the political fatigue non-political junkies must be feeling by this point, wouldn't this be the time to use -more- emotionally charged commercials rather than less? This ad looks like just another political ad like the hundreds that a viewer might see as related to this election. Ads can't just be good, they need to be phenomenal at this point in the campaign season. "Unfair" is just simply not good enough.
Thanks to a few days off from school away from Internet access, I now have a lot of catching up to do in terms of recent Prop 8 news. Bear with me while I get on that.
First up however, is dealing with piece of mail I received today. That's right folks, I received a letter from the No on Prop 8 campaign, soliciting "urgently needed contributions." I've mentioned before that the supporters of Proposition 8 seem to be doing a better job employing fear tactics to sway voters into voting yes, however this letter is a pretty solid use of fear mongering to garner "no" votes.
The underlying purpose of the letter is to highlight the 3-2 fundraising disadvantage that the opponents of Proposition 8 are facing, and underscore their need for donations to continue an effective media campaign. The more interesting part of the letter emphasises the "dehumanising slander" against LGBT peoples said by supporters of Proposition 8, including this statement from The Family Research Council in Rhode Island:
"A same-sex couple's marriage cannot be recognized because: "Following the logic of the appellants and their supporters, man/animal marriage and man/deceased woman marriage must be permitted under Rhode Island law simply because the General Assembly has not expressly prohibited it."
The letter also included this statement from the April 13 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
"So this is just the beginning, ladies and gentlemen, of this crazy gay marriage insanity - it's gonna lead to all kinds of things like this. Courts are gonna be clogged. Every nut in the world is gonna - somebody's gonna come in and say, 'I wanna marry the goat." You'll see it; I guarantee you'll see it."
After one gets done chuckling at the image of a (wo)man/goat marriage, (would the goat need a stool to kiss the bride/groom? Would it need a proxy to repeat the vows?), one can see the "dehumanizing" comparison presented - LGBT people are no better than animals or corpses. While it's hard to call this propaganda letter fear tactics precisely, it is certainly negative advertising. The letter is targeted towards individuals already targeted as being strong opponents of Proposition, and therefore are either LGBT, or avid gay rights advocates. This letter therefore, would probably incite anger within the targeted population, and therefore motivate people to give money to the campaign. Considering the more positive tenor of the television ads, it's interesting to see how the No on Prop campaign chooses to target its base. While it might more publicly present non-threatening image towards the larger heterosexual community, the No on Prop 8 campaign is just as bitterly passionate and negative as the supporters of Proposition 8. Neither side is sticking to the moral high road in this campaign.
Last week protectmarriage.com and the Vote Yes on Prop 8 aired their first major tv ad in California. I have to say, I think it is a brilliant ad. The ad starts of with a clip of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom at a press conference telling the world that "this door is wide open now. It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not." The ad continues into a discussion of the legality of the California Supreme Court's decision to allow gay marriage, even going so far as to pull a Pepperdine Law Professor to talk about the possible/actual fallout of allowing gay marriage - people suing over personal beliefs, churches losing their tax exemption status, and gay marriage being taught in schools. One of the last things a viewer hears is Mayor Newsom's strident statement that gay marriage will happen now "whether you like it or not."
Basically, this ad targets the major possible fears that undecided heterosexual voters might have about allowing gay marriage, preying upon voters' homophobia. (Will the schools be turning my child gay? Will my church be compromised?) Inadvertently, I'd argue that Mayor Newsom did more damage then good with his remarks, as now the supporters of Proposition 8 have a sound byte to heighten "fear of the gay takeover" in voters. Never mind a catchy slogan, "Whether you like it or not" will continue to reverberate in a voter's head long after the ad has ended.
It is more likely that a voter will remember a frightening phrase (and let's face it, even if you like Mayor Newsom, he is a bit abrasive, then a soft spoken appeal to maternal/paternal pride. Scare tactics work better than tugging at heart strings, so at this stage I'd say the score is Vote Yes: 1. Vote No:0.
No discussion of Proposition 8 would be complete without looking at the propaganda being thrown at California residents. But who is the propaganda really targeting? Both sides of the debate are spending their money and resources trying to sway undecided voters towards voting one way or another. More specifically, they are trying to target heterosexual voters, who may or may not have had any contact with people from the LGBT community, and therefore may not have concrete views on the issue.
For example, a friend of mine is an organizer for the Vote No on Prop 8 campaign, and her main job is to run phonebanks on Oxy's campus in an attempt to get students to give voters the "facts" of the proposition in order to convince them to vote no. The majority of the people that she calls do not have a firm stance on the issue of same-sex marriage, and many do not understand what the issue really even is.
Putting any biases of my own aside, I find it very interesting how both sides on the issue have chosen to frame the idea of same-sex marriage to market a specific viewpoint to heterosexual voters. Those in favor of Prop 8 state that it would protect the sanctity marriage, and not allow California to start down that slippery slope that would lead to churches being forced to marry homosexual couples, children being brainwashed and 'taught the gay", and eventually lead to other moral depravities such as marriage between men and animals. The pro-Prop 8 side has chosen fear tactics, though usually garnished with a nice, happy picture of a smiling heterosexual family. Through these tactics, voters somehow think that their marriage might be affected, and therefore plan to vote yes.
On the other side of the coin, those against Prop 8 are playing the equality card, telling voters that Prop 8 would be a crime against the great ideals of freedom and equality that make up the backbone of our country. A tv commercial put out over the summer by Let California Ring shows a heterosexual couple trying to get married, but things keep going wrong to prevent the bride from reaching her husband to be. Through this commercial, Let California Ring is playing upon voter's empathy, making them think about how awful it would be if they themselves could not marry who they loved, and therefore plan to vote no.
So which tactic is more effective? To date, the supporters of Prop 8 have out raised the opponents 3-2. With more money, comes more access to voters, and more chances to sway the out come of the election. Being in a very liberal environment, I have a skewed view of how the two campaigns are functioning - I have never seen a supporting of Prop 8 campaigning around Oxy. However, I would argue that the fear tactics of the supporters of Prop 8 are more effective for a simple reason - people vote on issues that they think affect them. A voter is more likely to vote to protect themselves, than to vote to protect the freedom of others. Heterosexual voters who have no contact with those in the LGBT community do not have an access point to the issue, and therefore may not be as motivated to go to the polls that day, especially since their vote for the Presidential election does not really matter (since California will go blue). On November 4Th we very well might be seeing a large step backwards for the gay rights movement.
Welcome to my collection of blogs. Pass the Peanuts is the only one active now, but the other two are fun as well.
I am an undergraduate majoring in Politics at a small liberal arts institution. I am a feminist, a dancer, and an all around nerd.
Posts
