How refreshing, both candidates both went for the original political ads this week. They promoted themselves instead of bashing each other. Let's start with Jerry Brown.
Brown went to San Jose this past week and had quite the famous endorser: Bill Clinton. They had themselves a little rally on the San Jose State University campus. The news spot on Brown's YouTube channel shows only the positives of Brown- why Clinton is endorsing him, what he plans and wants to do if he's elected, and it shows an auditorium full of people cheering Brown and Clinton on. All positive images are shown, smiles, handshakes, hugs, and people cheering.
As most of you know, Meg Whitman got into some trouble for hiring an illegal Mexican immigrant. One of her newest ad shows her interacting with the Mexican people and even shows Mexican professionals giving their own positive testimonials for Whitman. They shows them saying that they believe Whitman can help them out of California's budget crisis, saying that she's a relatable person that has what it takes to help them. The ads shows video of Whitman smiling and making friends with the Mexican community and their kids. Whitman does some background narration saying that CA is worth fighting for.
I'm glad that both candidates promoted themselves this week instead of attacking each other. Both ads had very positive images which makes it hard to choose which one I liked better. But I'm going to have to go with Brown, he did have Bill Clinton as an endorser. But to be fair, both Brown and Whitman conveyed their messages quite well this week, leaving all the baloney behind them. I only say Brown did better this week because of Clinton, for one, and the fact that we went to SJSU to do a rally, which was a huge success. So I give Brown and A and Whitman a B+.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Kristy Yip Blog 3
And they're at it again.
A couple weeks ago, Brown and Whitman were at a debate and Whitman was asked if she could give specifics on how she would create jobs. She said that she wants to do some targeted tax cuts. Jerry Brown comes in later and, essentially, calls Whitman out on who she would be giving targeted tax cuts too- the rich. Brown was trying to convey to his audience that Whitman would be the wrong choice for California's governor. While Brown was giving his response to Whitman's statement, the TV station did a side-by-side shot of both candidates. It was very clear that Whitman was uncomfortable with Brown's comments. She tried to smile while he was talking but I could tell that she had no idea what to do or how to act. Was it because Brown is right? Since I only used a clip on Jerry Brown's YouTube channel, that only showed the question, statement and comment, Brown didn't focus on his accomplishments. He did, however, say what he intended to do if he won- he wants to enrich our school system and not make billionaire's and millionaire's richer.
The very next day, Whitman puts out a commercial ad basically saying that she has what it takes to make California a better place to live. This ad is very different than her "down with Jerry Brown" ads. In this one, she's actually talking about what SHE wants to do if she wins governor, there's nothing in the ad about how Brown would be a bad choice, and she's actually in the ad talking, trying to appeal to audiences. Images she uses are quite effective, I suppose. Though it's out of focus, the background is a garden of some sort making Whitman seem like a nurturing kind of person. And the last image she uses is of her, of course, smiling with a sign in the background saying "Jobs are on the way!"
I'm glad that Whitman has at least a couple ads showing the people what she can do for their state. It's refreshing to watch, I must say. But who, in my humble opinion, do I think did a better job? I say Jerry Brown. He brings up a good point, something that voters are most wary of, tax cuts for the rich. He says what he needs to say, doesn't necessarily attack Whitman, and is done with it. Whitman doesn't even try and refute his statement because she knows that what he says is the truth. And I think it's funny how the very next day, Whitman decides to run an ad with her trying to be more personable to viewers. This week, I give Brown and A and Whitman a B-.
A couple weeks ago, Brown and Whitman were at a debate and Whitman was asked if she could give specifics on how she would create jobs. She said that she wants to do some targeted tax cuts. Jerry Brown comes in later and, essentially, calls Whitman out on who she would be giving targeted tax cuts too- the rich. Brown was trying to convey to his audience that Whitman would be the wrong choice for California's governor. While Brown was giving his response to Whitman's statement, the TV station did a side-by-side shot of both candidates. It was very clear that Whitman was uncomfortable with Brown's comments. She tried to smile while he was talking but I could tell that she had no idea what to do or how to act. Was it because Brown is right? Since I only used a clip on Jerry Brown's YouTube channel, that only showed the question, statement and comment, Brown didn't focus on his accomplishments. He did, however, say what he intended to do if he won- he wants to enrich our school system and not make billionaire's and millionaire's richer.
The very next day, Whitman puts out a commercial ad basically saying that she has what it takes to make California a better place to live. This ad is very different than her "down with Jerry Brown" ads. In this one, she's actually talking about what SHE wants to do if she wins governor, there's nothing in the ad about how Brown would be a bad choice, and she's actually in the ad talking, trying to appeal to audiences. Images she uses are quite effective, I suppose. Though it's out of focus, the background is a garden of some sort making Whitman seem like a nurturing kind of person. And the last image she uses is of her, of course, smiling with a sign in the background saying "Jobs are on the way!"
I'm glad that Whitman has at least a couple ads showing the people what she can do for their state. It's refreshing to watch, I must say. But who, in my humble opinion, do I think did a better job? I say Jerry Brown. He brings up a good point, something that voters are most wary of, tax cuts for the rich. He says what he needs to say, doesn't necessarily attack Whitman, and is done with it. Whitman doesn't even try and refute his statement because she knows that what he says is the truth. And I think it's funny how the very next day, Whitman decides to run an ad with her trying to be more personable to viewers. This week, I give Brown and A and Whitman a B-.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Kristy Yip Blog 2
Jerry Brown put up an ad, 6 days ago, stating that he was the one to balance the budget, create jobs and was the one that stopped the rich from stealing other people's taxes. Brown used images of him signing papers which gives off he impression that he'll sign other laws and bills that reduce taxes- a big thing the want people want to have happen. He also used images of people working because, remember, he was the one that created 1.9 million jobs. And in this ad, Brown actually makes an appearance stating what he would do if he became the governor of California. Brown doesn't mention Meg Whitman at all in this commercial, he focuses on his accomplishments and what he wants to do in office. I do believe that this week, Brown conveyed his message very clearly to his audience, that he's not the monster Whitman makes him out to be.
Meg Whitman, on the other hand, has yet another down with Jerry Brown ad. This time, Whitman focuses more on how he handles all kinds of taxes. It's like another Brown history lesson, which is smart on her part because she tells the people that ever since 1978, Brown has been raising taxes instead of reducing them. Whitman uses pictures of Brown when he looks guilty or ashamed or not even looking into a camera lens. Of course she doesn't want pictures of Brown smiling, though I think it would have had the same kind of effect. The background music of the ad was a cheerful almost childish music. I'm not too sure why she chose to do this. Maybe to show contrast perhaps. Whitman only focuses on scrutinizing Brown, again. She doesn't make an appearance in the ad and the only time you see her name is at the bottom, like in the video I mentioned last week.
I feel as though Whitman is doing way too many ads about how terrible Brown is. I suppose it is an angle that should be worked during a campaign but I think Whitman is starting to go overboard. I have seen very few ads depicting herself and why she would be a better governor than Brown. And although her "monster Jerry Brown" ads are clever and convey her message very well to audiences, I'm going to say that Brown did a better job this week. He doesn't attack Whitman like Whitman has been attacking Brown. Instead he stands by what he wants to do and how he is going to accomplish things. He actually tells the people why he would make a good governor. This week, I give Brown an A- and Whitman a C+. But if I were to not compare and contrast the 2 ads and not take into account that Whitman has another ad criticizing Brown, I was give it and A because, it's a pretty clever and funny ad campaign.
Meg Whitman, on the other hand, has yet another down with Jerry Brown ad. This time, Whitman focuses more on how he handles all kinds of taxes. It's like another Brown history lesson, which is smart on her part because she tells the people that ever since 1978, Brown has been raising taxes instead of reducing them. Whitman uses pictures of Brown when he looks guilty or ashamed or not even looking into a camera lens. Of course she doesn't want pictures of Brown smiling, though I think it would have had the same kind of effect. The background music of the ad was a cheerful almost childish music. I'm not too sure why she chose to do this. Maybe to show contrast perhaps. Whitman only focuses on scrutinizing Brown, again. She doesn't make an appearance in the ad and the only time you see her name is at the bottom, like in the video I mentioned last week.
I feel as though Whitman is doing way too many ads about how terrible Brown is. I suppose it is an angle that should be worked during a campaign but I think Whitman is starting to go overboard. I have seen very few ads depicting herself and why she would be a better governor than Brown. And although her "monster Jerry Brown" ads are clever and convey her message very well to audiences, I'm going to say that Brown did a better job this week. He doesn't attack Whitman like Whitman has been attacking Brown. Instead he stands by what he wants to do and how he is going to accomplish things. He actually tells the people why he would make a good governor. This week, I give Brown an A- and Whitman a C+. But if I were to not compare and contrast the 2 ads and not take into account that Whitman has another ad criticizing Brown, I was give it and A because, it's a pretty clever and funny ad campaign.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Kristy Yip Blog 1
Jerry Brown recently came out with an ad depicting "The Real Meg Whitman" as corrupt and not suitable for Governor of California. Images he used of Whitman were both of her smiling and not smiling. When there were pictures of Whitman smiling is was when he was stating that she paid herself 120 million dollars and when he was calling her corrupt. I think he did this because gives off the impression that Whitman herself found these accusations to be true, clever. For this particular ad, Brown focuses more on how Whitman would be a bad choice for California's new Governor. Nothing in the ad states his accomplishments or goals for if he wins the election.
The Jerry Brown Failure, endorsed by Meg Whitman attacks Brown and criticizes his whole political career. Whitman starts with images way back from when Brown when in the Vietnam War and then shows pictures of the effects of when Brown was in political office, showing pictures of homeless people, empty classrooms, and crime. The ad focuses on putting down Brown, stating that his whole political career has been a complete failure. Whitman's name isn't even mentioned in the ad, only written at the end of the bottom of the ad.
I think the Whitman did a better job conveying her message that Brown is unsuitable the Governor of California because she uses more images that are visual appealing, using transitions and word repetition. She also had more to say about how Brown is inappropriate for Governor. I give her ad an A-. I think that she should mention her name in the ad in the end so they know "the right person to vote for."
The Jerry Brown Failure, endorsed by Meg Whitman attacks Brown and criticizes his whole political career. Whitman starts with images way back from when Brown when in the Vietnam War and then shows pictures of the effects of when Brown was in political office, showing pictures of homeless people, empty classrooms, and crime. The ad focuses on putting down Brown, stating that his whole political career has been a complete failure. Whitman's name isn't even mentioned in the ad, only written at the end of the bottom of the ad.
I think the Whitman did a better job conveying her message that Brown is unsuitable the Governor of California because she uses more images that are visual appealing, using transitions and word repetition. She also had more to say about how Brown is inappropriate for Governor. I give her ad an A-. I think that she should mention her name in the ad in the end so they know "the right person to vote for."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)