Design I like

Simple design gets my attention faster than complicated design that has a lot of things going on all at once. In advertising I appreciate simple slogans, basic type when it comes to text, and nothing too colorful. The “got milk?” ad campaign that started in the early 90’s is a good example of media design that I like. It’s simple, makes you think (especially when combined with commercials), and makes a point.

Generally the text in “got milk” ads is black and white which is a little cooler then colorful lettering that can be annoying, at least to me. The squared off font is not over-stylized and more down to earth, less off putting then complicated letters. . Not having any capitalized letters also makes ads more comfortable for me to look at and enjoy.

Milk is something common that everyone knows and almost everyone grew up with. The simple advertisements feel just as familiar.

The “got milk?” slogan was not only used in comedic television commercials that stuck in the minds of consumers. It was also featured in the milk moustache magazine campaign that featured celebrities with, you guessed it, milk moustaches.

The ads drew attention from the big stars that participated in the campaign. People liked seeing famous people in the common predicament of having a milk moustache. The advertisements were multi-cultural and featured stars from sports, entertainment, pop culture, even cartoons. This further emphasized that the product is something that crosses all kinds of demographics and is drank by almost everyone. While researching this topic I even found out there was a spanish language campaign as well. ¿Toma Leche?

Another thing that helped when it comes to sales is that the moustaches (which were made from yogurt) looked really appetizing. I know after seeing those ads or watching a “got milk?” commercial I usually wanted a big glass of milk. I’d later regret that since I’m lactose intolerant. If the design of the ads can make me inflict pain on myself clearly they were affective.

How would you like your tea?

POLSC 217

Let’s face it April 15th is no Americans favorite day. Sure, the accounting industry is excited about their upcoming vacation but even they can’t deny that no one enjoys paying taxes. Regardless, every year we fill-out, envelope, and mail our hard earned cash to the IRS. What does this get us? It gets us a secure infrastructure. It gets us schools to educate the next generation. It gets us a working nation that we all know is one of the best in the world. Or at least that’s the idea.

Well this year, fueled by the new Obama tax plan and inspired by the 1773 tax revolt , in over 700 cities across the U.S. citizens staged “tea parties”, tax protests with a notably colonial twist.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Paul Waldman tell us that "The press both covers events and, in choosing what to report and how to report it, shapes their outcome" The media took the opportunity to shape the events of the day as they saw fit.

The press as a whole covered the parties, as well they should. Some news sources chose to be slightly more immature in their coverage. But no single news organization covered the event more heavily then Fox News. Fox News covered the tea parties for weeks prior to tax-day, framing the parties as a grass roots movement, but were they? Could it be possible that the overwhelming amount of coverage from Fox News incited their viewers (who are generally conservative republicans, the demographic most likely to oppose the governments recent spending spree) to support and attend the tea parties?

At 9PM on April 15th Fox News had live feeds from multiple cities and full team coverage. On CNN, Chelsea Handler was giving a tour of Candy Spelling’s mansion. Apparently CNN didn’t feel that a supposed grass roots tax revolt was worthy news. Critics have said that Fox sensationalized the tea parties to earn ratings and pander to their audience while jeopardizing journalistic integrity. Fox News even supplied supporters an opportunity to attend a virtual tea party on their web page. Certainly endorsing tax revolts wouldn’t be a fair, unbiased use of the resources of a major news organization like Fox. What do you think?



If you noticed at the beginning of that video is the other side of this issue. Was it fair for CNN reporter Susan Roesgen to attack protesters for utilizing their right to peaceful assembly and protest?



(When this clip was aired on multiple Fox News programs the part where the protestor is holding a poster compairing President Obama to Adolph Hitler was never shown or discussed. )

Clearly this is a highly polarized issue. On television. The truth of the matter is most people paid their taxes regardless. The tea parties were in my opinion nothing more then media events sensationalized by both liberal and conservative media. Reporters should provide unbiased coverage if for no other reason then to avoid the reinstatement of the dreaded fairness doctrine.

For a concise unbiased recount of the events (ironically found on MSNBC.com) here’s good old Brian Williams:



And honestly the first few minutes of this clip is hysterical:

Why McCain Has to See

Senator John McCain appeared as a guest on last Sunday’s episode of Meet the Press. Among host David Gregory’s interview questions were those regarding the future of the Republican Party. Specifically, the Arizona Senator was asked who he saw as the next leader of the GOP.

Although McCain named a few governors whom he’d like to see compete for a spot at the head of the GOP, he declined to identify a clear frontrunner. When asked if he would support ex-running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, should she decide to run for president in 2012, McCain settled on a hesitant “I’d have to see”.

A few short months ago, Senator McCain was campaigning to give Mrs. Palin the second highest post in the land, complete with the possibility to move up to first. His support of Sarah Palin as a presidential candidate would have been assumed prior to this interview. Why the change of heart? There are several possible reasons for McCain’s wavering support.

In August of 2008, Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain’s pick for vice president, causing a media feeding frenzy. Immediately igniting speculation that selecting a woman after Hilary Clinton had exited the race was a public relations tactic intended to grab up loose votes of those who had supported Clinton and wanted to see a female on a major party ticket.

As the campaign continued, the press’s framing of Palin became harsh. She was portrayed as an unprepared, religious fanatic, of sub-par intellect. Whether or not the depiction was fair, the media’s framing of Sarah Palin left a lasting impression in the public mind.

Was the selection of Sarah Palin as the GOP Vice Presidential nominee a campaign strategy? If McCain’s selection of Palin was merely a public relations scheme, she may have never held the Senator’s political confidence to begin with. Perhaps now that the campaign has failed, McCain is free to abandon marketing initiatives and voice substantive political opinions.

Although, there remains the possibility that McCain did once believe in Sarah Palin’s political capabilities and was dissuaded by her failure to perform or media depicted inadequacies. The media framed inadequacies clearly initiated with Palin. The extent to which media focus on such missteps dissuaded McCain’s confidence in Palin is unknown, but public support for the McCain/Palin campaign rapidly declined. It is likely that the Senator’s support experienced a similar effect, resulting in his uncertain stance toward the Alaska Governor.

A strong media frame may impact not only the intended politician but associated politicians, as in the case of McCain/Palin. The media’s portrayal of Sarah Palin continues to impact John McCain and his political career. It is possible that McCain recognizes the burden of negative media reception, a burden, which his campaign was unable to overcome. McCain may not believe it to be possible for Palin to shake her current image amongst the press in order to win the 2012 presidential election. In which case, public support of Palin as the GOP leader would be wasted political currency. And although it is unlikely that the Senator would attempt a presidential bid in 2012 at the age of 76, he continues to serve as a United States Senator, a role not without independent requirements of political support.

However, McCain no longer vies for the support of the entire Republican Party and is therefore less inclined to pander to conservative voters at Palin’s base. McCain now has the freedom to be true to his personal beliefs. Prior to last year’s elections John McCain was viewed as a centrist who had a strong following among moderate republicans. After poor campaign administration, especially in handling the media, McCain may be more careful with his statements to the viewing public. Less willing to jeopardize the support of middle-of-the-road republicans, McCain may have chosen to disassociate himself from Palin to the extent possible.

Is it that McCain – who is generally a poor media manager – now realizes how one person’s negative frame can affect another? Did he genuinely believe in Palin as a politician, but realizes the political impact of such support and attempts to separate himself from the Governor for purely public relations reasons despite “respect, admiration and love for Sarah [Palin] and her family”? Each consideration plausible motivation for restrained support of Sarah Palin. The extent to which McCain’s gained media understanding has influenced his public separation from Palin is speculative. From a strategic standpoint, there is little to gained in continued support of the Alaska Governor.

Bottom line, Palin is way more Christian-right than Goldwater-center and the McCain/ Palin campaign managers of 2008 could not find a way to believably and cohesively mix these two distinct republican archetypes. The contrasting media frames in combination with Governor Palin’s aggressive behavior towards mainstream media, created a black cloud around both candidates in the public perception, an association from which John McCain is best served through personal and political distance.