ads sell, the moving images moves us, emotion in media...

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

I've noticed that most people tend to believe that political ads, or bias in news coverage can't have an effect their personal views. I even sometimes think so myself, it is comforting to imagine that no matter how slanted the coverage, no matter how disproportionally importance is given to events of little consequence, while more essential issues are never openly discussed, I can "see through all of that" -- and watch and read news stories with enough detachment to glen the bits of truth and assemble my own (presumably more correct) understanding of events.

But, in fact, this is only so much wishful thinking. Repeated exposure to ideas will cause those ideas to seem more reasonable. Political ads do influence who people vote for-- and not just because people are paying attention to the facts-- but, it's the subtext, the use of images, the feelings that the ads evoke-- these things have an impact. And maybe it is easier to assume they have an impact only on "other people" -- people who are too busy or dull and uninterested to dissect media. But, I think it's naive to assume that.

I've noticed that advertising has a big impact on me. And when I limit my exposure to advertisements I end up spending much less money. Political ideas and questions like "who to vote for" -- can certainly work in the same way.

Short of living in a cave, though, there is little to be done about it. I did stop watching TV since I felt that moving images could have more of an emotional impact and I feel more detached and objective when I read. Ever since I stopped watching TV 12 years ago, my political views began to shift and mature. When I do watch TV (on rare occasions, such as visiting home) I have trouble identifying with any of the opinions presented, this was not the case before I stopped -- I have similar trouble with print media-- thought it is easier to simply stop reading and article-- when there is some kind of news show with presumably diverse guests I'm tempted to wait for someone to voice an opinion I agree with. In most cases it's best to leave the room and not bother waiting since that opinion won't come. And with print media and the internet one can find a far more diverse collection of opinions than you would ever see on TV.

This is (one of a few dozen reasons*) why I avoid TV. Also, it is so much easier to read something I disagree with strongly than to hear it spoken. So by reading I can take in more view points and I feel the presentation of issues is less emotionally wrought.

Do you think some types of news delivery are easier to take in when trying to avoid emotional manipulation?

* I don't really think not watching TV makes you better-- in many cases I totally miss what's going on since I don't know cultural references. Nor am i more productive or anything-- the internet can be just as much of a mind numbing time suck as TV.

Comments

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Yes I do think some types of news delivery are easier to take in when trying to avoid emotional manipulation. That's why the only thing I use the TV for is hearing some brief reports on a news-television type of channel (say, Euronews), plus the occasional football (soccer) match for entertainment. All the rest is hugely useless.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Yes, it may be due to its higher accessibility that I've got this impression about TV.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

Influence only really works when we want it to and if we allow it to.

I just don't think advertising would be as big as it is now if this were really true. Most people think advertised brands are higher quality than other products even when there is no rational basis for this.

And even though most people would want to think they always pick the "best value" --

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Virtually every study ever conducted on the issue shows that you're wrong. In fact, it's the premise of the OP. Not just with political advertisements, but products too, show that even if the person knows that random good looking people having fun on the beach has nothing to do with the quality of a beer, it does have an affect on how they perceive the brand.

Your analogy is improper too, as you are comparing watching a commercial and choosing to not let it affect you with choosing to not eat McDonalds. A more proper analogy would be eating McDonalds and choosing to not be fat. Sorry, just doesn't work that way.

[medea34.livejournal.com]

some name brand products are 'better' than their generic counterparts (q-tips come to mind, for some bizarre reason - the real q-tips are always fluffier than the store brand 'cotton swabs').

a friend of mine swears that motrin works on his headaches, while advil doesn't. this makes no sense as they are the same drug, ibuprofen. maybe one of the inactive ingredients is making a difference(yellow #6 vs. blue #2,iron oxide vs. titanium dioxide, plausible??).

i am inclined to agree with the suggestion that advertising just pushes you along in a direction that you want to go in. high fat/high sugar foods are a real easy push, everyone likes fat and sugar. if i have no interest in buying a car (snoogle, wrinkle cream, barbie doll or adult diaper) no amount of advertising is going to get me to purchase the item. however, if i would like a new computer, violent video game or cleaner toilet, advertisments for those products might induce me to purchase a specific brand (mac v. pc) or type of product (toilet duck v. toilet puck).

the only product choice i made solely on the basis of advertising was my cell phone provider (cause the telus ads are just so gooood) and even then, i was already wanting to get a cell phone - the ad just pointed me towards one provider over the others.

i largely avoid getting my news from the television, mostly because they lead with something tantalizing and don't report on it until the end of the show and even then it is never as interesting as the tease made it out to be. also, now that there are 24 hour news channels, tiny fragments of (non) information are stretched out beyond all belief and supplemented with opinion and other filler. newspapers, magazines, books and discussion groups on the internet fill me in on the world around me. and talking to people.

anyone who bases their vote on a political advertisment deserves the representative they get.

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

don't know about motrin, but anacin [anadin in the uk] is aspirin with caffeine. it'a more effective than plain aspirin in relieving my headaches.

caffeine is good.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

"I don't really think not watching TV makes you better ..."

If you don't think that, you're a moron for giving it up.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

I don't understand why you would say that.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

the only product choice i made solely on the basis of advertising was my cell phone provider (cause the telus ads are just so gooood) and even then, i was already wanting to get a cell phone - the ad just pointed me towards one provider over the others.

I really doubt it. Every decision you make is influenced by everything that has happened in your life. It would be remarkable if anyone only made one choice based on the influence of ads. Think of when you reach for a bottle of shampoo, or a box of noodles-- why grab one brand and not the other? No one has cost benefit plans for all of these things.

I find I'm more drawn to the one I've seen ads for. It seems more solid, more high quality-- some of the time it is... some of the time it isn't ...

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Because you've implemented a plan and continue to implement it despite the fact that you don't think there's a rational basis for doing so.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Well *any* persuasion plays off of hitting those right points, but the fact is that we can't choose to turn it off, we can't choose to not have it persuade us, so the actual mechanics are interesting, yes, but it doesn't help us avoid persuasion.

Really the only way you can avoid it is to live in a cave without electricity.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I'm guessing you guys are operating on different definitions of 'better'. Kind of rude to call someone a moron though, do you not think?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Sure we can, but it's an effort, and it may be too much effort for most people.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Actually very rude, particularly when unprovoked.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

And those of us who pay attention to what they're doing can choose not to be influenced. There are things that I've bought because I had a coupon and it was an item that I was willing to try once, but I can't think of anything that I've ever bought because of an ad. All the ads do for me is let me recognize the name when I see it and think that maybe that's a big enough company that will be around for a while so it's safe to try it because if I like it I can buy some more later.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

I'd be interested in what senses of 'better' you believe to be operational here.

I think I clarified what I meant, that the belief as posited is irrational. If using "acting irrationally" rather than saying "a moron" is less offensive, I'm happy to retract and rephrase and even apologize. My intent isn't to hurt anyone's feelings just pointing out that it's an irrational position.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

I suspect the receiver of that remark would deem the "acting irrationally" version more preferable.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I'm guessing in the context of the post 'better' would be a judgment of worth, and what she is saying is she doesn't want to judge people based on whether they watch television or not. She likes herself better for not watching it, but is specifically going out of her way to say that she's not saying that it some how raises her worth compared to other people.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

" She likes herself better for not watching it..."

Yeah, things are getting a little incoherent for me here. "She likes herself better?" Not quite sure what that means. but if so, why? In what does the "liking better" inhere? What is the basis for it? People presumably like themselves better for improving themselves, which is what I assume 'better' means, and what has been denied.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Okay, I retract and restate as:
"If you don't think that, you're acting irrationally for giving it up."

I apologize for being offensive.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

You understand the difference between 'I feel better about myself' and 'I am better than other people' right?

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

I understand a difference between feeling better and being better. The former is unjustified unless the latter is also the case. Still not seeing a different sense of 'better' here, just a difference in perceiving X and X actually being the case.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

Everyone thinks that this is true about themselves and yet the trends tell a different story. Maybe you are a highly exceptional person with rare qualities.

But then, aren't we all?

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

*sigh* I didn't stop watching TV to become a better person. I stopped becuase I got tired of it. I only mention this fact to avoid this post being some kind of "I'm better because I don't watch TV" message. That's not really the point.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

That's all I was trying to say! It's not that complex.