Stereotypes: Rhetorical Impact Of Political Advertising

Rhetorical Impact of Political Advertisments
For several generations, political advertisements have used any means necessary to obtain a grasp on their audience’s attention, as well as their favor. The use of rhetoric coupled with metaphors translates messages to the audience that becomes more relatable, and perhaps persuades some to believe their argument to be more believable. Political advertisements that successfully expand their voter base follow certain techniques to appeal to an audience, such as the advertisement "Big Bird". This ad supported by Barrack Obama is intended to devalue the reputation of Mitt Romney during the 2012 presidential election through the usage of metaphorical satire. Jib Fowles in his essay, "Advertising's Fifteen

Advertisings persuading power is surely tested by its ability to connect and translate its message to the audience.

During the advertisement “Big Bird”, the narrator uses a condescending tone coupled with metaphorical satire to give relief to the viewers who think negatively of Mitt Romney; these people are the advertisements targets. The political advertisement successfully establishes a common ground for the dislike of Mitt Romney and provides "the best chance of arresting attention and affecting communication", Fowles mentions this as a possible strategy of obtaining the audiences favor. Persuasion through imagery is more impactful than the use of text; Jim Fowel describes the usage of visuals over text to fully capture the audience’s attention: “Some few ads have their emotional appeal in the text but for the greater number by far the

These fallacies discovered in advertisements deemed the political ad as “fake” or “unreliable”. An example of a logical fallacy included in the advertisement "Big Bird" would be the narrator claiming Mitt Romney and his political supporters are "Criminals. Gluttons of greed". By calling them something demeaning it’s an attempt to prove the presidential candidate isn't suited for office, thus belittling his ethos. In this case, this fallacy backfired and ruined the credibility of the advertisement for myself. It is easily distinguishable when an argument has neither basis nor evidence available to support its claims. An opinion such as “Gluttons of greed" is a claim that questions the credibility of those it’s applied to. When the advertisement uses such a phrase, it makes the author seem less legible to those who don't agree with the message portrayed. To some, the fallacies presented are indeed fact or the truth, an advertisement such as this is a window into the world of politics for the uninformed masses. Again, the advertisement uses a satirical logical fallacy when it describes the yellow bird from Sesame Street, "Big Bird", an "Evil Mastermind". Comparing the character to an evil mastermind is obviously an over exaggeration, but its intention is to make it believable Mitt Romney is misusing his political power focusing on a fight against what the advertisement describes as "big, yellow, a