Midleading claims

This entry was posted in video. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Midleading claims

  1. Brin McAtee says:

    I remember when this skit aired and I remember thinking that this seemed very similar to real campaign messages. An overgeneralization or framing things with literal meanings is a bit past stretching the truth. Overall I think this would be unethical if it wasn’t for the “I approve” acting as a disclaimer. But people will only remember the images and the message spoken whether it is true or not.

  2. Trevor Fox says:

    When I see real ads like these I tend to shrug them off and ignore them, because corrupted political powers fund many of them. The SNL skit was funny in the way that they kept trying to justify all of the campaign messages through small loopholes. It;s a joke here, but sadly like Brin said, these ads all stretch the truth and are somewhat unethical, but because there is a disclaimer at the end people seem to think they are okay. Ads like these in real life make me want to go out and do my own research and not just believe the point of view of the candidate approved.

  3. Molly Johnson says:

    I thought the skit as funny and had a grain of truth in it. Like Trevor said, the justifying of statements was the funniest part because during elections there are so many accusations directed towards opposite parties – they cannot all be true. This concept reminded me of when we talked in class about American advertisements that inadvertently make fun of or discredit their competitors in their ads. It’s interesting how elections have come to striking your opponent down instead of standing on your own with your own merit.

  4. Layc Looney says:

    I don’t watch a lot of SNL, so I have never seen this skit before. It was comical to me, playing up how political campaigns attack the competition. I always wonder to what extent the opposing parties research each other. I mean I know they know a lot about their competition, but when watching political campaign ads I wonder why they are constantly cutting each other down. It seems that the point they are trying to make is that the other candidate’s beliefs and even ways of life are ridiculous by digging up old information that isn’t important at the time of the debate. By doing this they are focusing on negative facts rather than creating positive messages about their own campaign. I often get annoyed when I hear these type of messages because of how negative they can be towards the other. That is what I remember most about the particular candidate.

  5. Max Williams says:

    Campaigns always seem to get ridiculous on both sides. You could have probably done this same skit with Obama and some McCain ads. Although I am a democrat, I don’t think that being ethical in political ads is something that either party is good at. I did hear recently about this cool website that fact checks some notable political statements and ranks them on a scale from True to “Pants on Fire”. There’s one part of the site just for Oregon too. It can be found at http://www.politifact.com

  6. alexandra reyes says:

    The skit was funny because of the craziness of the ads. However, it is sad and expected that people back this stuff. I wish, the US had a campaign season like France or GB. Three months is really all you need to get to know the people running for something. The longer this craziness goes on the more people will belief it even if its not true. I remember Sara Palin and the Bauchan woman saying things that were not historical correct. Then those moments end up in the news for a couple of days. Also it may not be ads but hearing political commentators replay and talk about these people. It is like there ads for canidates during shows. It’s too much.

Comments are closed.