Data still shows that the internet is not king…yet. A Rasmussen survey from July still indicates that more Americans put their trust in network television than the internet for the news. The poll of 1000 adults had 46% agreeing that network television is a “more reliable source of credible news information” followed by 35% siding with the internet and 19% that are unsure.

Also, according to Rasmussen, women are more likely than men to trust the network news. Men are evenly split. At the same time, Democrats favor network news two-to-one compared to Republicans and politically unaffiliated adults who see the two mediums as equal in terms of reliability.

What does all this mean? Two things. First, the data represents an overall decline in the ratings of the major news networks: ABC, NBC, and CBS. Second, it lends credibility to the idea that the declining ratings of the networks have been because of a perceived bias in reporting.

More than half of the Americans surveyed go online almost every day and see online reporting comparable to their local newspaper, contributing to the decline in network viewership.

Furthermore, last August, only 10% of voters said they watched any of the three major anchors every day for information about the election. Where were they getting their news? One place was talk radio, which was grabbing viewers at a rate of two-to-one compared to network news.

All indicators point to the decline in the traditional format of the network news. Many believe the internet and other outlets will eventually replace the TV networks as the standard bearer of news in America. The issue is not if, but when and to what degree, the internet and others will rule the news business.

Who will be the next Walter Cronkite?

You may want to look on YouTube before you turn on your TV.

The big political battle of the summer is turning out to be on healthcare. Some interest groups have begun churning out material in support of their respective positions with video advertising. Conservatives for Patient Rights has been airing national ads in an attempt to define the debate. One of its first ads “The Four Pillars of Healthcare Reform” hones a clear and concise message with effective buzzwords like “choice” and “personal responsibility.”

CPR has also run a variety of ads with personal testimonials of patients negatively affected by government healthcare. Its most recent ad “Bulldozer” uses the metaphor of a bulldozer as the destroyer of personal choice.

Many universal healthcare advocates have reacted to their ad buys with online responses. For example, The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) responded with a witty 1:32 web video creatively mocking right wing attacks on health care.

Americans United for Change recently delivered a TV ad before President Obama’s speech for the American Medical Association entitled “62%.” Like the previous CPR ad, it is light, simple, and straightforward. Its effectiveness is manifest in the use of President Obama’s election support for healthcare reform.

These are just a few examples and will not likely be the last as the summer battle over healthcare reform heats up.

The ad goes on to highlight his signing into law legislation on the economic stimulus package, the Leadbetter equal pay legislation and the S-Chip funding bill.  The second part of the spot lays out Obama’s future initiatives regarding energy, healthcare and education.

Not surprisingly, the spot declines to highlight anything controversial, including the AIG bonuses and the spending bill, which received no support from House Republicans.

The ad breaks little ground, merely a stock in trade messaging vehicle for the President.  In terms of production and delivery, it’s very straightforward, leaving nothing too memorable.  Quite frankly, a little disappointing from the master messengers we witnessed during the 2008 Election Cycle, who also did some great media work leading up to the inauguration on change.gov.

The effort, the first targeting a 2010 senate candidate, flies under the website called www.REIDistributewealth.com .

The new spot, titled, “Trillion” was released this week.  The details of the broadcast buy are unclear. 

The NRSC’s interest in targeting Reid stem from what Republicans consider his staunch partisan approach and what appears to be his electoral vulnerabilities.

A Las Vegas Review-Journal article on Monday cited recent polling, by a conservative political action group, showing Reid vulnerable among Nevada voters.

Reid was viewed favorably by 47 percent and unfavorably by 47 percent of Nevadans surveyed by the Salt Lake City-based polling firm NSON Opinion Research for the Legacy PAC, a California-based activist group that hopes to target Reid for defeat in 2010.

In the survey of 400 Nevada voters, which carries a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points, 47.3 percent viewed Reid favorably, including 27.3 percent who had a very favorable view and 20 percent whose opinion was somewhat favorable.

Among the 46.8 percent who had an unfavorable opinion of Reid, 8.8 percent of those polled viewed him somewhat unfavorably, while a whopping 38 percent had a very unfavorable view.

The first piece was produced by CatholicVote.org, a faith based educational program dedicated to informing all Americans about the critical issues in the public policy arena.  

According to their website, “Life: Imagine the Potential™ is our newest campaign designed for sharing on the Internet, and for use on broadcast TV. ” The campaign is focused on reaching beyond staunch pro-lifers, Americans who are either indifferent, or who have not yet thought about the great potential of every human life.”

The second piece is a spot released by Terry McAuliffe’s campaign for VA Governor.  It’s the first television ad in the race, five months before the state’s June primary.   He is truly defining ’slow burn’ strategy, this far out with TV.

While neither media piece appears to be edited using high end graphics or cinematic techniques, the catholic spot has much more value in terms of appeal.  The music grabs your attention, while the chyron graphics keep you guessing with questions.  It creates drama and makes the viewer think about the spot after it’s played.  

As much as the Catholic piece provokes interest, The McAuliffe spot provokes boredom.  It’s chyron graphics are tired and the look and feel of the spot equally passe.  The spot could have been shot for a candidate in 2002 – really.  It’s surprising, for a guy who has and can raise millions of dollars.  With the amount of money McAuliffe is spending on the buy, months in advance, I would imagine much more would have gone into producing a much better spot.  

Yes its bio, and yes it’s for  raising name ID, but that still doesn’t mean all creativity is lost.

Two spots. Same day. Different effects.

If you read my post: Top 50 books for Political Operatives,

The book, titled, Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Political Ads Work (Click here), is a must read for anyone interested in political media communications and advertising.

Author, TED BRADER, provides an in-depth analysis of varying political advertising strategies, with specific attention to non verbal cues, an aspect of political media rarely touched by others in academia.  He references and discusses well-known and obscure political advertising campaign tactics, which played an important role in recent and historical elections.

In his thorough examination, Brader makes a strong argument; that carefully crafted audio and visual elements used in political advertising effectively create an emotional appeal which has an intrinsic dramatic effect on viewer/voting audiences.

In 2006, I wrote a piece for Politics Magazine (aka Campaigns & Elections), which I similarly argued that emotional appeals are the strongest form of political communications and advertising.

While my piece dealt more specifically with the use of images and symbolism related to September 11th in political advertising, I held that content and techniques used to create emotion is critical for maximizing moving voter opinion and creating action.

Here’s some relevant highlights from my piece:

Provoking emotion is one of the most important aspects to any political activity. 

Successful campaigns usually create a situation or series of situations that draw emotion from audiences – constituents or voters.  Emotional connections made in speeches, press releases, direct mail pieces or television spots are fundamental to controlling the message and the issues in an election.

Emotional appeals almost always trump rational appeals when attempting to gain political support or create negative views about an opponent.  Voters are more apt to create positive or negative feelings about an issue or candidate through emotions and sentiments rather than rational or logical arguments.

Campaigning for Hearts and Minds goes into much greater depth in making this argument.

Below, I’ve included a few well crafted reviews, by other readers as posted on Amazon:

Ted Brader’s “Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Political Ads Work” drives yet another nail into the coffin of academic wisdom that voters are either rational decision-makers or complacent habit-following creatures by providing compelling evidence for the role of emotions in political campaigns… In sum, this book is a must-read for anyone interested in learning how emotions influence politics by substantially advancing our understanding of how emotions drive our political thoughts, decisions, and actions. (Patrick A. Stewart)

The general audience may find the statistical discussion somewhat slow going, but this is not a turgidly written academic tome. At the same time, it is a solid academic work. His takeoff point (page 2): “. . .the motivational and persuasive power of campaign advertising depends considerably on whether an ad appeals to fear or enthusiasm.” He contends that emotional appeals built into campaign ads makes them more effective–the mixture of a political message plus emotion can be powerful if crafted well….The book is also worth looking at because of its notice of the relevance of psychology and the neurosciences for understanding why emotional elements in political ads can have such an effect. This demonstrates powerfully the importance of cross-disciplinary research.

It’s really quite amazing how one man can wake up one day, meet Barack Obama, ask him a question about taxes, and then instantly get shot onto the national stage of presidential politics.  Joe, the plumber from Toledo, instantly filled the role of average American worker perfectly for both candidates, as their poster child on a range of issues from taxes to healthcare and everything else in between.

But in my book you really haven’t made all the history books until you’ve been immortalized in a political TV spot.  Well, Joe the Plumber” did that one too.

McCain beat the Obama campaign to the punch with this spot:

Obama countered with this one, released this morning:

But – not on youtube yet – so click here to view.

The original spot centered around two actors, who effectively portrayed an average working class couple, distraught by the flawed healthcare system which was then being touted by first-lady Hillary Rodham Clinton .  The spot became the focal point of the opposition’s message, which effectively derailed Clinton’s socialized healthcare reform agenda.

This time conveying a somewhat different message, the couple engages in another discussion on healthcare, this time encouraging John McCain and Barack Obama to make healthcare reform a center of their message for America:

The spot will air through both conventions on a variety of cable and broadcast media. It is intended to influence both party’s leaders and policy makers expected to visit Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul media markets over the next three weeks.

See the original Harry and Louise spot after the jump

The original spot can be seen here:

Both spots were paid for by a coalition led by the National Federation of Independent Business.

The Harry and Louise spots are rare for political advertising.  Rarely do you see real actors used in campaigns and not many as effective at pushing a message as these. Normally, campaigns attempt to utilize real life voters or constituents to hammer home a message in support or against a candidate.  There are several reasons why this is the case:

1. Real people come cheap compared to actors – actually most real live voters do not cost anything.  This helps keep production costs low for campaigns with limited budgets
2. Real people tend to convey a sense of shared feeling by average voters.  This is the same reason why reality television is still thriving.  People tend to connect more with people they feel are not  scripted like a polished actor or actress.
3. Real People have an easier time projecting themselves on voters that look or act like themselves.  This shared experience helps to persuade a voter into believing that their support or opposition to something is common to people just like them – so its ok.
4. Actors also open a line of attack up by an opponent who could accuse them of using paid people to tout their message – begging the question whether or not real people actually do share the sentiment being conveyed.
5. Similarly, real voters or constituents can not be attacked by an opponent.  Attacking an average voter expressing a point of view, no mater how emphatic, is political suicide.  Real life surrogates are protected from such attacks, which allow a message to be conveyed while minimizing counter messaging.