do political banner ads matter to you?

[Lisabob]

I'm just curious. Does anybody here form, or change, their views on political issues on the basis of random banner ads on websites?

 

I ask because there are some hotly contested ballot initiatives up for a vote in my state this year, and for whatever reason, I'm seeing banner ads for one side of one of the ballots on this site all the time, now (yes I realize you are not all seeing the same banner). Maybe I'm naive, but I can't imagine this is a highly effective method of persuasion. I'd think that in this highly commercial media age, people basically tune out such web banner ads, regardless of content. Am I wrong?

[BDPT00]

Well, considering that I have no clue about what you're speaking, I'd say you're right. I'll try to remember to look a little for it.

BDPT00

[scoutingagain]

No, the banner adds have no influence on my voting decisions.

 

As far as political analysis goes;

 

1. I don't believe anything adds on television or radio, printed material or other material put out by the campaign's or their surrogate PACs or political parties.

 

2. The last Presidential debate confirms that one should not believe anything the candidates say either.

 

Not to mention anything put out by FOX or MSNBC.

 

Doesn't leave much to go on, with the possible exception of a handful of written media, but that requires one actually read something and assess the content's veracity through other independent sources, that hopefully are not overtly biased.

 

Getting the straight scoop on a candidate or a political question in general is difficult work. One would hope the media/press would do a better job of correcting misleading information, but they have become part of the problem, not a solution.

 

SA

 

 

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

You know, there are times when someone is in my face enough that I am going to react badly no matter what they're saying. I understand the market necessity of those banners. But if something just keeps hammering at me, I'm going to start to wonder if maybe they're not convinced either. There's one up there right now...first time. I'm ok so far.

[OldGreyEagle]

I would put political banner ads on the same level as people posting things political on Facebook, annoying but hardly fact filled.

 

Right now I see an ad asking me to sign a petition so Karl Rove wont control our elections. As far as I know, Karl wont be in the booth when I vote so I am disinclined to sign. If he is in the booth when I vote, I promise to keep him there as long as I can so others are free to vote their mind

[packsaddle]

Egad! Now I have Billy Graham up there.

[Lisabob]

Well since somebody asked: the banner I'm getting says that if you vote for a particular ballot proposal in my state, then sex offenders, drunk drivers, and felons will destroy your children's futures by molesting (or killing) them on school buses and in schools. The latest one says something like "when it ruins lives, it matters."

 

Uh, no. There are honest reasons to be for or against the actual ballot initiative in question, but this ad (which is also running in other media forms like TV commercials) is such a transparent ooga-booga scare campaign, not grounded in reality, that I have a hard time imagining that it works. Especially as a random web banner ad. But then I thought, maybe I'm hopelessly naive and these things work. So far you are all restoring my faith in the power of reason. Thank you.

 

 

[Trevorum]

I've got Rand Paul.

 

I think I pay more attention to yard signs posted by real people than to ghost web banners

[Troop24]

I think there are enough political ads bombarding me on the TV so I am relieved to use Firefox as my browser with AdBlockPlus. No ads for anything interrupts my browsing pleasure!

[NJCubScouter]

I don't think ads influence my vote.

 

Right now it is "Romney v. Obama, Vote Here Now!"

 

But I suspect that if I clicked on it, it would try to influence my "vote." I plan to vote on Nov. 6 at my local school, not now online.

 

As for Lisabob's comment, here in New Jersey we do not have "ballot initiatives", at least not at the state level. There are no statewide referendums unless the legislature puts them on the ballot. This year I think the only two are a bond issue to provide funds for new facilities and colleges (wouldn't mind seeing ads for that one, I hope it passes) and a constitutional amendment to require judges to pay for a portion of their health insurance premiums just as all other public employees in the state (including teachers and municipal workers) now have to. The thing about the judges is a long story, and I'm guessing that most of you don't really want a lesson on the deep, dark recesses of New Jersey constitutional law.

[Basementdweller]

Firefox plus ad blocker plus plug in equals no annoying banners.

[Papadaddy]

The banners, phone calls, TV ads, facebook posts, do not influence me. My mind was made up 4 years ago. Nothing short of hard proof that one of them is a child molester will change my mind. I suspect at least 47% of the population feels the same.

[Kahuna]

Can someone please point to something given as hard news (as opposed to commentators or analysts) on Fox News that has turned out to be false? This is not meant to be a snarky question. I watch Fox News for both news and panels. Obviously, some of the commentators say things that can be disputed, but I've never seen anything false given as hard news.

[moosetracker]

Kahuna - Watching only FOX news is like have two children and only listening to one of them when they get in a tussle, or something gets broken..

 

FOX is slanted to tell you only the info that makes the Republican side of the story.. Their opinions are definately slanted that way. As long as we are staying away from the commentators and just discuss hard news.. What they will do NOT tell you something that looks bad for their conservative party, but over highlight everything that they think is wrong with the opposition.. Maybe not false, but not giving you a true picture to make an informed decision on either. Then add to that the commentaries..

 

I would advise you to look for a program that brings both republicans and democrats to the table to have both give their side of the story..

 

I am basically Liberal, so I go for MSNBC.. But..

 

Morning Joe - has two main hosts one is Republican, one is Democrat.. The Republican host is more verbally verbose.. So it may not be too hard on your Republican senses.. But weekly they invite guests from both Democrat & Republican parties to discuss the issues and you get both viewpoints. It is on MSNBC which is basically a Liberal station, but Morning Joe is their nudge to playing fair. Guests on the show have asked Joe how he sold the station on letting him have his show since he is not a liberal.

 

The other one I watch is a Sunday show.. "Meet the Press".. Again a show that will bring both sides to the table to discuss the issues..

 

[Kahuna]

"Watching only FOX news is like have two children and only listening to one of them when they get in a tussle, or something gets broken."

 

Certainly true, but equally true of any news source. I find the other news sources also pretty much tell you only their side of the story. That is certainly true of MSNBC. I hope you don't just watch their side of the story.

 

However, with the internet, it's possible to get a wide variety of news from all over, including Canada and the UK, which often have news stories about the U.S. not heard here.

 

I just find it interesting that so many people diss Fox, which has the largest viewing audience of any cable news organization (in most cases, more than the other cable news services combined) and claim they are lying to viewers. While it is true that their slant is conservative (I would not say Republican), they do present liberal commentators on most issues where there are viewpoints being offered. What is really interesting to me is that most liberals will simply not appear on that network in spite of invitations to do so. It appears to me that on the other networks, the liberals are allowed to pretty much say what they want, whereas on Fox they get called out when they are BSing or rattling talking points.