[lbo-talk] Advertisings effects (was Death of Dean)

[John Thornton]

Can you document that peoples "huge negatives, more so than other 
candidates" (your words about Dean) preceded the negative publicity in the 
national media? How many voters saw him up close? From 120 feet away 
listening to a speech and seeing him on TeeVee hardly seem like up close. I 
don't know exactly why the media seemed to turn on Dean. Probably a slow 
week and the "Dean Hothead" story requires no effort to write. Most people 
don't have really strong opinions about these candidates so swaying people 
a little more or less in one direction hardly seems a monumental task. It 
isn't as if anyone claimed with the right advertising one could turn a nun 
into an axe murderer. I think, but I could be quite mistaken, that you're 
projecting your opinion of Dean on others. Just like you, they now see him 
for what he is and dislike him, thus reinforcing your opinion of the 
rightness of your decision.
The idea that the media works mainly by keeping people from accessing info 
is laughable. The media defines what is acceptable for debate and what is 
not keeping the range within a narrow window. Maybe you don't think it's 
the medias job to drum up support for war in other lands and on crime, and 
on the poor but that's one of its main job, not suppressing info. I must be 
out of touch, I thought this was a pretty well accepted description, within 
progressive circles, of the function of media in the late 20th century. 
Maybe I need to get out more.

John Thornton


>But my point in specific was about Dean. This wasn't a
>generic advertising effect. People saw him up close,
>he got much higher negatives than other candidates --
>he abnnoyed people -- and he lost. I don't think this
>can be attributed mainly to media brainwashing. I
>think he lost in IA and NH because he failed impress
>the voters who saw him close up. In my view. the media
>effect mainly works by keeping info from people who
>otherwise lack cheap or free access to ot (not
>includinf just money costs, but also effort). But with
>Dean. the caucus voters had the indormation/ They just
>didn't like what they saw. jks
>
>--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> > andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> >
> > >But I once again note that the assumption that most
> > >people are pliable fools
> >
> > What is it with this binarist maximalism lately?
> > People can be
> > influenced by advertising and not be pliable fools.
> > We're influenced
> > by all kinds of things - why not ads, which are
> > ubiquitous and often
> > very cleverly done?
> >
> > Doug
> > ___________________________________
> >
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
>http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk