In my philosophy and communications classes, we talked about logical fallacies that are often present in persuasion speeches: ad hominems and straw man fallacies, in particular.
Ad hominems are when arguments attack the individual personally, rather than their argument or what they stand for.
Straw man fallacies are when people take the weakest form of their opponents argument to make their's appear superior.
Something I found interesting was the contrast between candidate-sponsored ads and ads by special interest groups. The candidate sponsored ads want to appear as positive messages, emphasizing the good the candidate is doing for the community and government (talking to children, making passionate speeches, caring about future, etc.). The ads ran by special interest groups were more negative, attacking the person as a whole (ad hominem) or by turning their arguments into a negative thing. One in particular was called "An Imperial Presidency" on the Washington Post website. At first, I thought it would be downgrading President Obama alone, using Hillary Clinton to attack him. However, it took a turn of events when it called Clinton a hypocrite. It's a very personal and aggressive attack. While many politicians take advantage of passive aggression, the ads used by special interest groups are just plain out aggressive.
I'm afraid that these videos will discourage viewers from having hope in America's future. They will always remember the negative things said about the person elected or running. Often times, this may deter people from voting. I have trouble voting and hate election season because I feel like I can't choose a good candidate either way. The negatives are worked up over the positives. Then again, it may promote voting with a passionate response.
Either way, I think it's sad to avoid watching live TV around Election time. Things shouldn't be that way.
