Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1787 that "The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them."
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Interest Groups
Check out this interest group and this one. How do these websites help build support for their cause? Please remember to leave your name and school
51 comments:
Anonymous
said...
The first website shows that it is very agianst McCain. It gets its view across about abortion by showing how much McCain is against it. They say that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and take away womens right to chose. About McCain they use the phrase "extreme anti coice views."The second website shows its hate toward abortion and obama even more strongly. Every headline has to do with obama being for abortion. It says he cant make up his mind and he got rid of laws saving babies. At the bottom it says "John McCain--A champion for our issue." These websites really just inform. Their vast information coupled with the life experiences and influence of advocats such as politicians, cultural icons and various prominent figures really helps them to get the word out and be heard by people who may normally not care to listen. It is so important to understand what election times bring in that they allow all of us who are ignorant to so many issues see them in the brightest of light.
The first website was pounding McCain. It just talks about how McCain is against abortion and how he wants to overturn Roe Vs. Wade. The second website talks about its hate towards abortion and how it hates Obama even more strongly. Most of the headlines had to do with Obama and how Obama's for abortion. It talks about how Obama can't make up his mind about getting rid of laws about abortion. At the bottom it makes McCain seem better by saying, "John McCaine, a champion for our issue." These two websites inform but they are bias toward McCain or Obama. The first website is making McCain look bad and the other website is making Obama seem bad as well. Overall though they both talk about the issues for people who are figuring out who to vote for. It helps people make decisions about who to vote and such.
In the NARAL website it bring light to what John McCain plans to do as president with Roe v. Wade. The web site reaches out to pro-choice supporter, most likely liberals. The website shows their dislike for McCain and his veiws on a woman's right to choose as well as Obama's which is more fourth right with what NARAL is about. In the Right to Life website it does just the opposite, pinning Obama for abortion issues. The websites use the presidential candidate of the opposing view to build support for their cause. It's kind of hard to get the straight facts from each of the website because each is so extreme. It would be hard for someone on the fence to go to these websites for information. Although someone who is very addament on their views would probably enjoy the wenbites more.
As the others have said, both sites have their biases. The pro-choice site directly says McCain is "mocking" woman's health. The site attacks McCain's views while supporting Obama's on abortion. The site builds support for their view by endorsing Barack Obama the candidate who thought Row vs. Wade was a correct decision. The pro life uses the same strategy. It promotes John McCain and attacks Obama's view. Both sites build good support for their cause because they use the two most prominent political figures at this current time. By using the two candidates, abortion gets into the news again. This can get more support for pro choice or pro life.
The Naral Pro Choice America website shows clearly that they are for abortion and that they are strongly against McCain. They say McCain mocks women's health and he is against abortion altogether. They get their views out by making McCain look bad. The National Right to Life website seems to be more towards McCain's side. They even have a quote, "John McCain--A Champion for Our Issue." But at the same time they show where each candidate stands on the abortion issue. This site seems to be a little less persuasive for one side, then the other site is. The pro choice site is persuading people to their side and trying to get their viewers to not side with McCain. Where as the second site shows the points and counterpoints and leave opinions more up to the viewers themselves. The websites help interest groups promote their ideas to the people. It works like an advertisement for the interest groups and their ideas. These websites can also help the candidates if their views agree, an interest group can promote a candidate on their site, just like these two sites did for Obama and McCain. The more people stumble upon these sites, the more supporters the interest group can gain. Kayla Clark - USM
As has been stated each site is bias towards one candidate or the other. The sites though full of information may not be all correct info. People are capable of exaggerating and using language to manipulate those who are reading the words. The sites are good at that. They want to draw people in with strong words and accusations. These sites are dangerous.. what I mean is there are a lot of people out there that are undecided that believe everything they hear/read. If they come across a site that bashes McCain, most likely they will start to sway that way(towards voting for Obama). They may not consider actually seeing if there is another side. The sites though I think were designed for those in support for either side. The strong words help those who define themselves as a conservative or liberal, reaffirm their beliefs(that they made the correct choice). The sites have their uses, but I can't say I agree with how people use them; especially now with the election so close. There is just too much room to mislead the readers.
Both websites provide information about abortion and links on how to donate for their cause. The pro-choice website attacks McCain, explains the importance of Roe V Wade, gives you an option to receive text message news, has an election link, information about local events, and information on other ways to support their cause. The pro-life site also gives links to key issues, news, events, and attacks Obama for his stance on abortion. Both their goals, based on the sites, is to provide the reader with information to persuade them to support their cause and give candidate information to be used on election day. However, I feel as though the pro-choice site does more to reach the reader by providing the text-message option and provides more links regarding elections, local events, and key issues. Usm- Charles
The first websight promotes Obama and the Second promotes McCain. Both websights do not really help you decide your stand on abortion, they just help you choose who you should vote for. They both are trying to show the extreme cases of the other canditate in a negative aspect. They try to glorify the candidate they are promoting with phrases such as: "John McCain a champion for our issue" and "Pro-Choice, pro-Obama" They are trying to help people decide who to vote for by slamming the rival candidate. These interest groups show you each persons stands so you can make a decision.
Both websites show the opposite sides to a very controversial issue. The first website is an obvious liberal, pro choice website. A lot of the literature and information found on it examplify Mccain's opposition to abortion and other women's rights to choose. They address the fact that he has used air quotes ( which was taken offensively), when discussing his position on this subject. The second website supports the pro life campaign, seeing John Mccain as a leader. The problem with both of these websites is that they are both all about their issue, and in not one instance do they acknowledge the other side of the argument. People need to stop thinking in only one direction and examine these issues from many points of view.
Both cites are bias in their own ways. The first sight is pro-Obama supporting his views on abortion and in a sense distorting McCain's opinion. The same goes for the second website, it is pro-McCain and in a sense distorts Obama's opinion/views on abortion. These two websites are informative but extremely bias towards once candidate over the other, giving the reader a sense of who they believe should be president. These websites are more for those interested in a specific candidate rather than someone who is trying to get factual background and information. These websites are more for interest groups.
On the pro-choice site, the attacks on John Mccain are endless. They express much disdain towards his attempting to overturn Roe v Wade and showed even more disdain at what overturning this would do. The pure taking away of women's rights is something this website is trying to protect against. The second website does similar attacks on Obama and this website expresses the feeling that abortion is wrongful and sinful and that it should be illegal. Both of these websites attempt to get jolts from its viewers by using strong emotions. I can see how both could be successful. Emotion is a key factor that is innate in human nature...and so therefore its an easy yet powerful thing to tap into.
Both websites refer to how each presidential candidate looks at the controversial topic of abortion. It seems like both websites make each candidate look bad. The first website seems to be against Senator McCain. In the article McCain wants to take away the women's right to chose the life of their baby which makes him look bad to some people. In the second website, there is alot of hate towards abortion and Obama. All the headlines are about Obama being for abortion. In both cases, the candidate's views may make him look bad to some of the voters in the country. Both of these websites are informative websites. they are good because they are used to help people make the decision on who they want to vote for by talking about controversial topics like abortion. -Matt Melia, USM
Both of these websites and groups do a good job at both informing viewers of abortion and the different governmental issues that are connected to it. They both bring in the two presidential candidates and allow us to see both sides of the spectrum when it comes to abortion. The first one you can see if obviously against McCain and his ideas as the second one is against Obama and his own. I think it is important for Americans to know not only that abortion is an issue being dealt with around this election but also what each candidate feels should be done. Issues such as this are what many voters may have as their deciding factor. These 2 different sites make it clear to viewers who they should vote for depending on their views. I think it is a great idea for voters to have access I just fear that someone would only run across one or the other and then only see half of the story.
There isn't in my mind a whole lot to say about this issue that hasn't been said. Interest goups are always going to present there side in the best light. They use vocabulary, rhetoric, endorsments among other things to make their side seem rational, moral and altogether right. The two interest group websites we had to look at really arn't very informative. They care less about the facts surrounding the issues (such as: well over 60% of women who recieve abortions end up on either medication or in therapy citing the reason as post pardom depression arising years after the operation, despite support for their abortion at the time.Talk about considering the mother health) Kind of like I just did, they try to persaude their cause, Only instead of using facts like I did, such as considering the emotional health of the mother in the future, and presenting it in a factual manner with statistics, the websites focus more on the surface of the issue by relating it to the candidates. Making it about the candidates simplifies it and makes it less about the agenda and more about alligning yourself wth like-minded individuals. That way the interest group doesn't have to go into details and can get people's support just because they support a certain person associated with the specail interest.
As other people have stated. Both sites are very anti- Obama or anti-McCain. The pro choice site seems to have never ending criticisim towards McCain, while the other does take its fair shots at Obama. The first site refers to Roe v. Wade to try and show how it would be with Mccain. The other site even though it takes it's shots at Obama, it also seems to try and boost up McCains image. It seems to be more informational than insult. David Brown CMCC
John McCain's position in the article seems distorted, at least from what he said in the debate. In the debate John McCain, or so he says, won't appoint activist judges. Most scholars in sociology and political science will agree the the 1973 precedent is too set in the public psyche to be overturned. Though the ad blasts John McCain, it really only appeals to the core of the Democratic party and not so much those precious swing voters. Most voters see these attack ads for what they're and when they go into the voting booth they'll take these ads with a grain-of-salt. The anti-Obama takes an interesting view and attacks as John McCain did, when he goes after the morality behind abortion. McCain was very careful with the issue during the debate, but most accept that he is moderate when it comes to social issues. The Obama ad made Obama out to be a pro-abortion monster. Pro-life organizations find it hard to attack the legality of chose, but the morality of abortion. It is much easier to deflect these criticisms because all he has to say is that he'll protect precedent. Though abortion is highly devisive issue, I believe that there is virtually no way that Roe v. Wade will be overturned, America has come to believe that Choice is a right.
I think that the first web is against McCain and more for Obama , and then the second website is kinda against Obama but also supports both candidates. I think that these sites are a perfect example of truth in the media because the sources are not clearly shown, and I am not sure what site is reliable and which one to believe. Nick Bouyea CMCC
The first site is defiantly anti McCain in every sense of the word they point out almost every time McCain has ever made a pro life contact.They are defiantly all for Obama he is plastered all over the website. As far as there message goes i feel they state it very clearly Roe V. Wade decision i also like the fact that they offer visitors a place to blog about the issue and off the chance for visitors to see both sides of the issue. I found the pro life site very powerful especially the images of partial birth abortions. Again this site is very clear on the issue they support and they are in clear support of John McCain though they do offer both candidates views on the abortion issue. I also like the fact they offer a link where visitors can resister to vote. Both site represent they cause very well they obviously are very passionate about the issue. It is refreshing to see citizens so involved in the policy of governments on both sides. And i think these sites provide a great service by showing where the candidates stand on certain issues as the candidates have really only covered the economy and taxes in their debates and TV spots i feel the issues such as abortion should be brought more into the campagins. Johann Donall USM
Both of these websites are very strong supporters of McCain or Obama. They express much disregard to McCains attempt to overturn Roe v Wade while the Pro life site criticized Obama. Both sites for very informational, and I do not think that they were insulting; they were informing voters of what their decisions will entail.
These two sites are both very informative on the controversial issue of abortion. One can tell that the first link is anti-McCain about his abortion views. They take McCain’s view of taking away a woman’s right to decide to abort their child, and they twist it to make him look even worse. While the other link there are many things about how Obama is all for abortion but they still manage to discretly bash him. I believe that both of these sight have a little bias but they are still rather informative if one can understand that there is bias and get past the fact. These sights also may tend to swing the vote of those who aren’t quite sure about their views or who they want to vote for.
Both of these sites build support for their cause by discussing the presidential candidates, and their opposing views. The NARAL website focuses on mocking McCain, and supporting Obama, in order to appeal to democrats and liberals. For the most part they do it in a respectful manner, so as not to compromise their integrity an turn people away. This website focuses more on disagreeing with McCain then agreeing with Obama. The National Right to Life website focuses on mocking Obama, and supporting McCain in order to appeal to republicans and conservatives. Again, this website does it in a respectful manner. This website is different in the way that it disagrees with Obama, but also agrees with McCain about the same. The candidates are both represented more on this site. Both sites offer a lot of information on the different issues regarding abortion also to support their cause. There is a lot of info on both, but the National Right to life site can use the graphic images of abortion for support, while the NARAL site doesn't have any strong images like that. Both sites use very similar tactics in order to build support for their opposing causes.
Firstly, the NARAL pro-choice America website helps build support for its cause by endorsing political candidates that believe in the same ideals. For example, this organization supports Senator Barack Obama for presidency because of his history of support for the pro-choice cause. It gives convincing reasons to those who support pro-choice as to why they should pick this candidate. This site uses very persuasive videos against Senator John McCain’s ideals about abortion, sex ed in schools, and his voting record on Supreme Court Judges who President Bush has supported. On the other hand, the National Right to Life site also has persuasive videos, however these videos are against Senator Barak Obama’s pro-choice views. This website also endorses a candidate, Senator John McCain because of his pro-life ideals. The website uses articles about such issues as how Governor Palin and Senator John McCain will help the pro-life cause, and many articles about Senator Obama’s voting records on abortion and his actual abortion ideals all to help the pro-life cause. Both sites use quotes from candidates that they are against and candidates they support. Both sites also use videos as a way to educate voters as to why they should endorse a candidate and not the other based on their abortion views. These are some of the ways these organizations help build support for their cause. USM Joanna Gildart
I feel that both cites are fairly biased. In the first website, i felt that it was very against McCain. And that he would pretty much want to take away a woman's right to choose by overturning roe v. wade. However In the second website we get a very negative vibe towards Obama. Pretty much all of the headlines dealt with Obama and his position on abortions. I feel that these sites however may be informative are flawed in that they are both trying to make each of the opposing candidates look bad in the public eye. I also feel that there is a very miniscule likelihood of roe versus wade ever being overturned.
Both sites help build support for their causes by using tactics and strategies which attempt to influence popular opinion. This is accomplished through: - Use of fact, including senate votes, news snippets, and demographics - Bold graphics and text to drive points home - Persuasive community building attempts and grass-root efforts, including e-mail lists, meetings, rallies - Criticizing opposing views - Historical perspectives - Encouraging support of the cause
Though the positions of each site are polar opposites with respect to views on life, they share a common passion regarding the desire to influence voters.
What makes these sites partisan is that there is an agenda that is put forth within each portion of both sites, especially regarding the use of SELECTIVE news snippets -- namely, those that support the cause and tarnish the opposition.
Imagery is also used in an attempt to trigger an (often emotional) response from the viewer in support of their cause: - a baby in the womb representing innocent lives - a diverse group of people who appear to support the cause - Statue of Liberty representing freedom - red, white, and blue to convey that "their cause" one that a patriot would pursue - official seals and emblems to convey seriousness of issues - Use of recognizable politicians to tie them to the issues
Both of these websites have their biases, because of their conflicting viewpoints. As everyone else has stated, one website promotes one canidate over another, and shows another in a negitave light. One thing I noticed about the first website was that there was a link where you could view both senators viewpoints on abortion, etc... This, to me, was the least bias thing I saw while looking at these 2 groups. These websites do however, give information to people and allow them to make a voting decision depending on their stance on the issue and this, ultimately is the groups ultimate goal.
the first website clearly provides support for sen. Obama. this website displays several opinions that make McCain look bad and Obama look good- any woman that reads this site is going to support Obama. it targets women of all ages; contraceptives, cancer screenings and abortions. the second site is proving the opposite. the way i see it, the website is trying to convince us of one thing: that Obama has been contradicting in his support for abortion and live-born infants. This makes McCain look good especially considering the last headline is about Palin having unfaltering support for Pro-life. At least she is consistent.
these web sites are a good read when you are debating on who to vote for. it has lots of support for maCain in the first one, talks about womans health care and about abortion. the second website is leaning towards obama and his ways. i think that these two articles make the candidates look bad
The first website is obviously against McCain and his views on abortion. It makes McCain seem like he is against not only abortion, but women's health in general. He air-quotes women's "health," like it is not important. It makes it seem that he does not care for the woman, only his beliefs about abortion itself...it is like he is saying, "My least concern is the woman. I am only worried about the innocence and well-being of the unborn child." On the other hand, the second website seems to be more against Obama. The website does give facts on what each candidate thinks about abortion, but it also clearly states the inhumanity of Obama's support for abortion. It was said that Obama supports partial-birth abortion. To let the people know exactly what this means, the website gave the brutal description of how the baby is aborted. The way it is done seems to be more like slaughter. The doctor almost literally rips the baby out by its leg, stabs it in the head, and sucks its brains out. This brutal fact will obviously pull at the heart strings of some people, which in turn, could turn them against Obama if they were previous supporters.
The first website is more for Obama and against McCain, where the second one is for McCain and against Obama. However, both sites are directed towards the same topic; abortion and women's rights. The first site if for people who are pro-abortion and want to see a change in women's rights across the country. Obama is for abortion and trying to lower prices for prescribed contraceptive for women of lower income, whereas McCain is against abortion and does not wish to help out the many women in need in our country. This site was against McCain. The second site was for McCain from people who are anti-abortion. Obama wants to legalize abortions, etc. but theses people don't believe in his cause, although it would help many women. This site is pushing people to vote for McCain and protect innocent lives. Basically these two sites are from two different perspectives; inti-abortion and pro-abortion. It just so happens that each canidate is for a different cause, so people use this to their benefit to persuade people to vote for the "right president".
Both interest groups' websites use many strategies to help build and support their cause. They both use attacks on opposing presidential candidates in an attempt to gain votes for the candidate that stands for their interest. Also, by using the presidential candidates, the controversial issue of abortion is brought back into the news forcing people to form an opinion and potentially gaining more support. Unfortunately, these attacks are often times just that, an attack. Most commonly, advertisements, such as these, are false or mostly false with little truth but they never present all the facts (which is why an undecided vote should not become decided because of an ass such as this). These sites use other such things like emotional factors to emphasize their view. A baby in the womb, for example, shows a different perspective most people don’t consider. Also, there's a strong presence of authenticity: seals, symbols of freedom and liberty, and a great mass of support. All of these tactics are encourage swaying opinions to become part of their interest group. Brittany Michaud - USM
Both websites use good strategies to support what they believe in. The first website Naral, bashes McCain and talks about him overturning Roe v. Wade. It promotes the right for women's choice by attcking McCain's opnions on the subject, in turn promoting Obama. The second website promotes pro-life, the idea that every child should be born and attacks Obama's views on choice, thus promoting McCain. Again, both of the sites strategies on reching their audience are effective by bashing their competetors and presenting their side thoroughly.
The pro choice american web site is for giving women the to abort a pregnancy. The website has a lot of articles on how much McCain is against abortion. Some of the articles on the website talk about how He wants to overturn the ruling on Roe vs. Wade. The nrlc has a ton of articles on just the opposite. They talk about how how Obama is for abortion. The websites contents show that the essentially hate abortion. The two websites do indeed contain valid information, but they are both biased. Both sides do a good job getting there point out in my opinion.
Each website is very bias towards what they believe. The first website dislikes McCain and his belief on abortion. It explains that he wants to review Roe v. Wade and wants to make abortion illegal. I see myself as a republican but I really do not believe that the government should decide on an issue like this. I believe that it should be a womans choice. The second website describes Obama's view on the abortion issue and that he supports abortion to an extent. I really do believe that these websites support their cause because they do give a lot of information about what each candidate stands for. -Dan Chabot American Politics
The first website was very much against John McCain. it was just picking everything that he was against and criticising it. the second one was showing it's distaste for obama and abortion altogether.
The first web site, which focuses on pro choice issues is quite obviously against McCain. It pretty much consisted of attacks on McCain, claiming that if he were elected we would be facing another 4 years of Bush-like policy making. Though this site was based upon the issue of abortion, vague comments like that are intended to influence the public into voting Obama. The second website was exactly the opposite of the first. This Pro life website was full of attacks on obama, offering up samples of his voting record which show his stance on abortion. They claim that Obama is against saving lives, and thats just a low blow if you ask me. then again abortion is a touchy subject that most people feel very strongly for in both directions. it really doesn't surprise me that they are endorsing certain parties in order to ensure their views on the subject are a big issue in the next election.
I believe that these sites build support for their cause by identifying with a specific party or candidate. If you look, each of these sites pretty much relates to McCain or to Obama. So advocates for either candidate may look at these sites, maybe even support them, based on the fact that they side with their favorite presidential candidate.
The first article describes how McCain will carry on an administration similar to what we’ve seen during bush’s time in office. The article also praises Obama for his plans to support a woman’s choice and also his support to bring about awareness regarding unintended teen pregnancy. The second article talks about how Obama’s record on abortion is distorted and promotes the woman’s choice to kill babies. This article is against abortion and ridicules Obama on his political stand point on the issue. I on the hand believe it is a woman’s choice, however I would hope I’d never be placed in that situation for I don’t believe I’d be able to have the procedure. I’d like to stress that people must learn that they cannot control the lives of others and no one should be able to tell another what they can and cannot do to their own body. Abortion is a controversial issue, but there are far greater threats the American people should be more concerned about.
Both groups advocate well for their position. I think that it is important that each side align themsleves with the candadite that supports their beliefs. Abortion has long been a subject that divides parties and that people feel very strongly about. It is important that we are each well informed about how the candidates will affect abortions laws.
The first website is very much pro choice. They constantly criticize John McCain's view on abortion. They feel that every woman should have the chance to chose what happens to her body. The second website has more factual evidence and does not stress its point quite as strongly. Although it is a against abortion they mainly give the reader information and let us choose.
These websites are both good displaying their points and what they stand for. The websites build support for their cause by relating it to presidential candidates. This issue is already a big topic, and these sites just further fuel the debate.
the first website is showing mccain in a bad light, especially in the video about his "air quotes". who knows if he has really good points about the topic or not, because all that this naral group is doing is depicting him in the worst light. even though it is clear (according to this site) that mccain is not pro-choice, and that is the issue, period, it still doesn't give it's viewers a chance to hear what mccain has to say. the other site does the opposite by saying that obama is mis-leading with his statements and references. it claims that he sites the illinois born-alive infants protection act as talking about the stage of a "previable fetus" which happens a month or so before birth, but the bill is written as meaning after delivery. the site says that maccain also noted obama opposed illinois legislation to ban partial-birth abortions. the idea that i get from these two groups is that anyone can be downsized or upsized at any time through context, close observation, or playing with any aspect of portrayal. everyone's got good qualities and bad qualities, everyone slips up here or there, and even if they don't it's still very easy to make anyone look however you please.- fecteau- cmcc
Each site seems to promote their views by giving only parts of the information that lends to support their cause. Because this is an election year, the home pages are filled with information about the presidential candidates and their broad stances on the issue of abortion. The problem with showcasing the candidates in this manner, as well as pointing only to portions of the issue, is that it offers a one sided view of the entire issue. To look solely at the homepages of the two sites, it would seem that McCain is pro-life without exception, no matter what. There will never be a circumstance that arises that he can imagine that abortion might be an option to pursue. Obama, on the other hand, one site promotes as pro-choice, and the other hints that he might personally be standing at the end of people’s beds, waiting to perform abortions in person as soon as the moment of conception. Which view is completely accurate? Probably neither; maybe one – but you don’t know what views are held by the candidates themselves unless you go check the information that the candidates give you. Sites like NARAL Pro-Choice America and National Right to Life skew information to information to bring people who already share some of the same ideals to the same spot and build upon those ideals by feeding them information laced with propaganda. What has been proven is that if something is repeated enough, people will believe it to be true, whether it is true or not. I think both groups are effective in their campaigns and on their sites. I don’t believe that being honest has much to do with being effective, which is unfortunate.
The Pro-Life website endorses Barrack Obama and not only puts down current Pres. and Vice Pres nominees McCain and Palin, but puts down the Republican party's view on abortion in general. There was an article about McCain and Palin and how strongly they stand about abortions, but there is also information about how Bush is against it as well. There is an information link about the Bush Administration and the pro-life people involved. It also shows information in this section about people Bush himself has hired or nominated for positions. One in particular was Anti-Birthcontrol activist Eric Keroack who was nominated to lead the family planning programs at the Department of Heath and Human Services. The website itself isn't all politics though. It also offers helpful information about abortion, and contraceptives. The National Right to Life website of course endorses McCain and puts down Obama. With this page they put even more political pages and links up to get their point across than the pro-life website does. The whole homepage itself is all about the republican stance v. the democratic stance on Abortion. Either way, both websites use current politics with the presidential race to get their point across.By doing this it shows the websites are updated regularly with new information about either candidate and how their stance of abortion could effect the election and people's votes. - Zach Lachance USM
These two web sites are both pretty negative towards McCain and Obama. They do show signs of liking one more then the other at times, but they don't come right out and say it. ben french, CM
The first website is completely against McCain and tries to show how selfish he is for not allowing people to make their own decisions about their lives and babies. It praises Obama's efforts in supporting pro-choice.. The second website promotes McCain for his strong stance against abortion. They show extreme cases and try to make Obama out to be a bad person and candidate for president because of the difference in opinion that he might have. Abortion is a very personal issue and should not decide a presidency based on peoples' opinions on a very private decision.
When ever I surf on web I never forget to visit this website[url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips].[/url]You have really contiributed very good info here essentialobservations.blogspot.com. I am sure due to busy scedules we really do not get time to care about our health. Here is a fact for you. Research indicates that nearly 60% of all U.S. adults are either chubby or weighty[url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips].[/url] So if you're one of these people, you're not alone. In fact, most of us need to lose a few pounds once in a while to get sexy and perfect six pack abs. Now the question is how you are planning to have quick weight loss? [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips]Quick weight loss[/url] is really not as tough as you think. If you improve some of your daily diet habbits then, its like piece of cake to quickly lose weight.
About me: I am webmaster of [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips]Quick weight loss tips[/url]. I am also health trainer who can help you lose weight quickly. If you do not want to go under difficult training program than you may also try [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/acai-berry-for-quick-weight-loss]Acai Berry[/url] or [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/colon-cleanse-for-weight-loss]Colon Cleansing[/url] for effective weight loss.
Do you guys watch movies in theater or on internet? I use to rent DVD movies from [b]Netflix.com[/b]. Recently I discovered that we can watch all new movies on internet on day, they are released. So why should I spend money on renting movies??? So, can you guys please tell me where I can [url=http://www.watchhotmoviesfree.com]watch latest movie Animal Kingdom 2010[/url] for free?? I have searched [url=http://www.watchhotmoviesfree.com]Youtube.com[/url], [url=http://www.watchhotmoviesfree.com]Dailymotion.com[/url], [url=http://www.watchhotmoviesfree.com]Megavideo.com[/url] but, Could not find a good working link. If you know any working link please share it with me.
51 comments:
The first website shows that it is very agianst McCain. It gets its view across about abortion by showing how much McCain is against it. They say that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and take away womens right to chose. About McCain they use the phrase "extreme anti coice views."The second website shows its hate toward abortion and obama even more strongly. Every headline has to do with obama being for abortion. It says he cant make up his mind and he got rid of laws saving babies. At the bottom it says "John McCain--A champion for our issue." These websites really just inform. Their vast information coupled with the life experiences and influence of advocats such as politicians, cultural icons and various prominent figures really helps them to get the word out and be heard by people who may normally not care to listen. It is so important to understand what election times bring in that they allow all of us who are ignorant to so many issues see them in the brightest of light.
Danielle Ward-USM for above comments
The first website was pounding McCain. It just talks about how McCain is against abortion and how he wants to overturn Roe Vs. Wade. The second website talks about its hate towards abortion and how it hates Obama even more strongly. Most of the headlines had to do with Obama and how Obama's for abortion. It talks about how Obama can't make up his mind about getting rid of laws about abortion. At the bottom it makes McCain seem better by saying, "John McCaine, a champion for our issue." These two websites inform but they are bias toward McCain or Obama. The first website is making McCain look bad and the other website is making Obama seem bad as well. Overall though they both talk about the issues for people who are figuring out who to vote for. It helps people make decisions about who to vote and such.
CMCC- Bronson Drewry
In the NARAL website it bring light to what John McCain plans to do as president with Roe v. Wade. The web site reaches out to pro-choice supporter, most likely liberals. The website shows their dislike for McCain and his veiws on a woman's right to choose as well as Obama's which is more fourth right with what NARAL is about. In the Right to Life website it does just the opposite, pinning Obama for abortion issues. The websites use the presidential candidate of the opposing view to build support for their cause. It's kind of hard to get the straight facts from each of the website because each is so extreme. It would be hard for someone on the fence to go to these websites for information. Although someone who is very addament on their views would probably enjoy the wenbites more.
Alexis R. D. Handy USM
As the others have said, both sites have their biases. The pro-choice site directly says McCain is "mocking" woman's health. The site attacks McCain's views while supporting Obama's on abortion. The site builds support for their view by endorsing Barack Obama the candidate who thought Row vs. Wade was a correct decision. The pro life uses the same strategy. It promotes John McCain and attacks Obama's view. Both sites build good support for their cause because they use the two most prominent political figures at this current time. By using the two candidates, abortion gets into the news again. This can get more support for pro choice or pro life.
CMCC- Michael Ozdarski
The Naral Pro Choice America website shows clearly that they are for abortion and that they are strongly against McCain. They say McCain mocks women's health and he is against abortion altogether. They get their views out by making McCain look bad. The National Right to Life website seems to be more towards McCain's side. They even have a quote, "John McCain--A Champion for Our Issue." But at the same time they show where each candidate stands on the abortion issue. This site seems to be a little less persuasive for one side, then the other site is. The pro choice site is persuading people to their side and trying to get their viewers to not side with McCain. Where as the second site shows the points and counterpoints and leave opinions more up to the viewers themselves. The websites help interest groups promote their ideas to the people. It works like an advertisement for the interest groups and their ideas. These websites can also help the candidates if their views agree, an interest group can promote a candidate on their site, just like these two sites did for Obama and McCain. The more people stumble upon these sites, the more supporters the interest group can gain.
Kayla Clark - USM
As has been stated each site is bias towards one candidate or the other. The sites though full of information may not be all correct info. People are capable of exaggerating and using language to manipulate those who are reading the words. The sites are good at that. They want to draw people in with strong words and accusations. These sites are dangerous.. what I mean is there are a lot of people out there that are undecided that believe everything they hear/read. If they come across a site that bashes McCain, most likely they will start to sway that way(towards voting for Obama). They may not consider actually seeing if there is another side. The sites though I think were designed for those in support for either side. The strong words help those who define themselves as a conservative or liberal, reaffirm their beliefs(that they made the correct choice). The sites have their uses, but I can't say I agree with how people use them; especially now with the election so close. There is just too much room to mislead the readers.
CM- Jess Jacobs
Both websites provide information about abortion and links on how to donate for their cause. The pro-choice website attacks McCain, explains the importance of Roe V Wade, gives you an option to receive text message news, has an election link, information about local events, and information on other ways to support their cause. The pro-life site also gives links to key issues, news, events, and attacks Obama for his stance on abortion. Both their goals, based on the sites, is to provide the reader with information to persuade them to support their cause and give candidate information to be used on election day. However, I feel as though the pro-choice site does more to reach the reader by providing the text-message option and provides more links regarding elections, local events, and key issues. Usm- Charles
The first websight promotes Obama and the Second promotes McCain. Both websights do not really help you decide your stand on abortion, they just help you choose who you should vote for. They both are trying to show the extreme cases of the other canditate in a negative aspect. They try to glorify the candidate they are promoting with phrases such as: "John McCain a champion for our issue" and "Pro-Choice, pro-Obama" They are trying to help people decide who to vote for by slamming the rival candidate. These interest groups show you each persons stands so you can make a decision.
USM Danielle Mailly
Both websites show the opposite sides to a very controversial issue. The first website is an obvious liberal, pro choice website. A lot of the literature and information found on it examplify Mccain's opposition to abortion and other women's rights to choose. They address the fact that he has used air quotes ( which was taken offensively), when discussing his position on this subject. The second website supports the pro life campaign, seeing John Mccain as a leader. The problem with both of these websites is that they are both all about their issue, and in not one instance do they acknowledge the other side of the argument. People need to stop thinking in only one direction and examine these issues from many points of view.
Alex Prezzano, USM
Both cites are bias in their own ways. The first sight is pro-Obama supporting his views on abortion and in a sense distorting McCain's opinion. The same goes for the second website, it is pro-McCain and in a sense distorts Obama's opinion/views on abortion. These two websites are informative but extremely bias towards once candidate over the other, giving the reader a sense of who they believe should be president.
These websites are more for those interested in a specific candidate rather than someone who is trying to get factual background and information. These websites are more for interest groups.
Jenna Hannigan-USM
On the pro-choice site, the attacks on John Mccain are endless. They express much disdain towards his attempting to overturn Roe v Wade and showed even more disdain at what overturning this would do. The pure taking away of women's rights is something this website is trying to protect against. The second website does similar attacks on Obama and this website expresses the feeling that abortion is wrongful and sinful and that it should be illegal. Both of these websites attempt to get jolts from its viewers by using strong emotions. I can see how both could be successful. Emotion is a key factor that is innate in human nature...and so therefore its an easy yet powerful thing to tap into.
-Ashley Fitzgerald
CMCC
Both websites refer to how each presidential candidate looks at the controversial topic of abortion. It seems like both websites make each candidate look bad. The first website seems to be against Senator McCain. In the article McCain wants to take away the women's right to chose the life of their baby which makes him look bad to some people. In the second website, there is alot of hate towards abortion and Obama. All the headlines are about Obama being for abortion. In both cases, the candidate's views may make him look bad to some of the voters in the country. Both of these websites are informative websites. they are good because they are used to help people make the decision on who they want to vote for by talking about controversial topics like abortion.
-Matt Melia, USM
Both of these websites and groups do a good job at both informing viewers of abortion and the different governmental issues that are connected to it. They both bring in the two presidential candidates and allow us to see both sides of the spectrum when it comes to abortion. The first one you can see if obviously against McCain and his ideas as the second one is against Obama and his own. I think it is important for Americans to know not only that abortion is an issue being dealt with around this election but also what each candidate feels should be done. Issues such as this are what many voters may have as their deciding factor. These 2 different sites make it clear to viewers who they should vote for depending on their views. I think it is a great idea for voters to have access I just fear that someone would only run across one or the other and then only see half of the story.
~Rachel Gordon USM
Response from Adam Deveau
There isn't in my mind a whole lot to say about this issue that hasn't been said. Interest goups are always going to present there side in the best light. They use vocabulary, rhetoric, endorsments among other things to make their side seem rational, moral and altogether right. The two interest group websites we had to look at really arn't very informative. They care less about the facts surrounding the issues (such as: well over 60% of women who recieve abortions end up on either medication or in therapy citing the reason as post pardom depression arising years after the operation, despite support for their abortion at the time.Talk about considering the mother health) Kind of like I just did, they try to persaude their cause, Only instead of using facts like I did, such as considering the emotional health of the mother in the future, and presenting it in a factual manner with statistics, the websites focus more on the surface of the issue by relating it to the candidates. Making it about the candidates simplifies it and makes it less about the agenda and more about alligning yourself wth like-minded individuals. That way the interest group doesn't have to go into details and can get people's support just because they support a certain person associated with the specail interest.
As other people have stated. Both sites are very anti- Obama or anti-McCain. The pro choice site seems to have never ending criticisim towards McCain, while the other does take its fair shots at Obama. The first site refers to Roe v. Wade to try and show how it would be with Mccain. The other site even though it takes it's shots at Obama, it also seems to try and boost up McCains image. It seems to be more informational than insult. David Brown CMCC
John McCain's position in the article seems distorted, at least from what he said in the debate. In the debate John McCain, or so he says, won't appoint activist judges. Most scholars in sociology and political science will agree the the 1973 precedent is too set in the public psyche to be overturned. Though the ad blasts John McCain, it really only appeals to the core of the Democratic party and not so much those precious swing voters. Most voters see these attack ads for what they're and when they go into the voting booth they'll take these ads with a grain-of-salt.
The anti-Obama takes an interesting view and attacks as John McCain did, when he goes after the morality behind abortion. McCain was very careful with the issue during the debate, but most accept that he is moderate when it comes to social issues. The Obama ad made Obama out to be a pro-abortion monster. Pro-life organizations find it hard to attack the legality of chose, but the morality of abortion. It is much easier to deflect these criticisms because all he has to say is that he'll protect precedent. Though abortion is highly devisive issue, I believe that there is virtually no way that Roe v. Wade will be overturned, America has come to believe that Choice is a right.
Brendan Morse USM American Government
I think that the first web is against McCain and more for Obama , and then the second website is kinda against Obama but also supports both candidates. I think that these sites are a perfect example of truth in the media because the sources are not clearly shown, and I am not sure what site is reliable and which one to believe.
Nick Bouyea CMCC
The first site is defiantly anti McCain in every sense of the word they point out almost every time McCain has ever made a pro life contact.They are defiantly all for Obama he is plastered all over the website. As far as there message goes i feel they state it very clearly Roe V. Wade decision i also like the fact that they offer visitors a place to blog about the issue and off the chance for visitors to see both sides of the issue. I found the pro life site very powerful especially the images of partial birth abortions. Again this site is very clear on the issue they support and they are in clear support of John McCain though they do offer both candidates views on the abortion issue. I also like the fact they offer a link where visitors can resister to vote. Both site represent they cause very well they obviously are very passionate about the issue. It is refreshing to see citizens so involved in the policy of governments on both sides. And i think these sites provide a great service by showing where the candidates stand on certain issues as the candidates have really only covered the economy and taxes in their debates and TV spots i feel the issues such as abortion should be brought more into the campagins.
Johann Donall USM
Both of these websites are very strong supporters of McCain or Obama. They express much disregard to McCains attempt to overturn Roe v Wade while the Pro life site criticized Obama. Both sites for very informational, and I do not think that they were insulting; they were informing voters of what their decisions will entail.
April USM
These two sites are both very informative on the controversial issue of abortion. One can tell that the first link is anti-McCain about his abortion views. They take McCain’s view of taking away a woman’s right to decide to abort their child, and they twist it to make him look even worse. While the other link there are many things about how Obama is all for abortion but they still manage to discretly bash him. I believe that both of these sight have a little bias but they are still rather informative if one can understand that there is bias and get past the fact. These sights also may tend to swing the vote of those who aren’t quite sure about their views or who they want to vote for.
Melissa Ramsden
USM
Both of these sites build support for their cause by discussing the presidential candidates, and their opposing views. The NARAL website focuses on mocking McCain, and supporting Obama, in order to appeal to democrats and liberals. For the most part they do it in a respectful manner, so as not to compromise their integrity an turn people away. This website focuses more on disagreeing with McCain then agreeing with Obama. The National Right to Life website focuses on mocking Obama, and supporting McCain in order to appeal to republicans and conservatives. Again, this website does it in a respectful manner. This website is different in the way that it disagrees with Obama, but also agrees with McCain about the same. The candidates are both represented more on this site. Both sites offer a lot of information on the different issues regarding abortion also to support their cause. There is a lot of info on both, but the National Right to life site can use the graphic images of abortion for support, while the NARAL site doesn't have any strong images like that. Both sites use very similar tactics in order to build support for their opposing causes.
Justin Richardson-USM
Firstly, the NARAL pro-choice America website helps build support for its cause by endorsing political candidates that believe in the same ideals. For example, this organization supports Senator Barack Obama for presidency because of his history of support for the pro-choice cause. It gives convincing reasons to those who support pro-choice as to why they should pick this candidate. This site uses very persuasive videos against Senator John McCain’s ideals about abortion, sex ed in schools, and his voting record on Supreme Court Judges who President Bush has supported. On the other hand, the National Right to Life site also has persuasive videos, however these videos are against Senator Barak Obama’s pro-choice views. This website also endorses a candidate, Senator John McCain because of his pro-life ideals. The website uses articles about such issues as how Governor Palin and Senator John McCain will help the pro-life cause, and many articles about Senator Obama’s voting records on abortion and his actual abortion ideals all to help the pro-life cause. Both sites use quotes from candidates that they are against and candidates they support. Both sites also use videos as a way to educate voters as to why they should endorse a candidate and not the other based on their abortion views. These are some of the ways these organizations help build support for their cause.
USM Joanna Gildart
I feel that both cites are fairly biased. In the first website, i felt that it was very against McCain. And that he would pretty much want to take away a woman's right to choose by overturning roe v. wade. However In the second website we get a very negative vibe towards Obama. Pretty much all of the headlines dealt with Obama and his position on abortions. I feel that these sites however may be informative are flawed in that they are both trying to make each of the opposing candidates look bad in the public eye. I also feel that there is a very miniscule likelihood of roe versus wade ever being overturned.
Both sites help build support for their causes by using tactics and strategies which attempt to influence popular opinion. This is accomplished through:
- Use of fact, including senate votes, news snippets, and demographics
- Bold graphics and text to drive points home
- Persuasive community building attempts and grass-root efforts, including e-mail lists, meetings, rallies
- Criticizing opposing views
- Historical perspectives
- Encouraging support of the cause
Though the positions of each site are polar opposites with respect to views on life, they share a common passion regarding the desire to influence voters.
What makes these sites partisan is that there is an agenda that is put forth within each portion of both sites, especially regarding the use of SELECTIVE news snippets -- namely, those that support the cause and tarnish the opposition.
Imagery is also used in an attempt to trigger an (often emotional) response from the viewer in support of their cause:
- a baby in the womb representing innocent lives
- a diverse group of people who appear to support the cause
- Statue of Liberty representing freedom
- red, white, and blue to convey that "their cause" one that a patriot would pursue
- official seals and emblems to convey seriousness of issues
- Use of recognizable politicians to tie them to the issues
Ashley Hallett
USM
Both of these websites have their biases, because of their conflicting viewpoints. As everyone else has stated, one website promotes one canidate over another, and shows another in a negitave light. One thing I noticed about the first website was that there was a link where you could view both senators viewpoints on abortion, etc... This, to me, was the least bias thing I saw while looking at these 2 groups. These websites do however, give information to people and allow them to make a voting decision depending on their stance on the issue and this, ultimately is the groups ultimate goal.
Micaela Enevoldsen USM
the first website clearly provides support for sen. Obama. this website displays several opinions that make McCain look bad and Obama look good- any woman that reads this site is going to support Obama. it targets women of all ages; contraceptives, cancer screenings and abortions. the second site is proving the opposite. the way i see it, the website is trying to convince us of one thing: that Obama has been contradicting in his support for abortion and live-born infants. This makes McCain look good especially considering the last headline is about Palin having unfaltering support for Pro-life. At least she is consistent.
Sarah Myrick
USM
these web sites are a good read when you are debating on who to vote for. it has lots of support for maCain in the first one, talks about womans health care and about abortion. the second website is leaning towards obama and his ways. i think that these two articles make the candidates look bad
scot
The first website is obviously against McCain and his views on abortion. It makes McCain seem like he is against not only abortion, but women's health in general. He air-quotes women's "health," like it is not important. It makes it seem that he does not care for the woman, only his beliefs about abortion itself...it is like he is saying, "My least concern is the woman. I am only worried about the innocence and well-being of the unborn child." On the other hand, the second website seems to be more against Obama. The website does give facts on what each candidate thinks about abortion, but it also clearly states the inhumanity of Obama's support for abortion. It was said that Obama supports partial-birth abortion. To let the people know exactly what this means, the website gave the brutal description of how the baby is aborted. The way it is done seems to be more like slaughter. The doctor almost literally rips the baby out by its leg, stabs it in the head, and sucks its brains out. This brutal fact will obviously pull at the heart strings of some people, which in turn, could turn them against Obama if they were previous supporters.
-Briana Jette, USM
The first website is more for Obama and against McCain, where the second one is for McCain and against Obama. However, both sites are directed towards the same topic; abortion and women's rights. The first site if for people who are pro-abortion and want to see a change in women's rights across the country. Obama is for abortion and trying to lower prices for prescribed contraceptive for women of lower income, whereas McCain is against abortion and does not wish to help out the many women in need in our country. This site was against McCain. The second site was for McCain from people who are anti-abortion. Obama wants to legalize abortions, etc. but theses people don't believe in his cause, although it would help many women. This site is pushing people to vote for McCain and protect innocent lives. Basically these two sites are from two different perspectives; inti-abortion and pro-abortion. It just so happens that each canidate is for a different cause, so people use this to their benefit to persuade people to vote for the "right president".
Both interest groups' websites use many strategies to help build and support their cause. They both use attacks on opposing presidential candidates in an attempt to gain votes for the candidate that stands for their interest. Also, by using the presidential candidates, the controversial issue of abortion is brought back into the news forcing people to form an opinion and potentially gaining more support. Unfortunately, these attacks are often times just that, an attack. Most commonly, advertisements, such as these, are false or mostly false with little truth but they never present all the facts (which is why an undecided vote should not become decided because of an ass such as this). These sites use other such things like emotional factors to emphasize their view. A baby in the womb, for example, shows a different perspective most people don’t consider. Also, there's a strong presence of authenticity: seals, symbols of freedom and liberty, and a great mass of support. All of these tactics are encourage swaying opinions to become part of their interest group.
Brittany Michaud - USM
Both websites use good strategies to support what they believe in. The first website Naral, bashes McCain and talks about him overturning Roe v. Wade. It promotes the right for women's choice by attcking McCain's opnions on the subject, in turn promoting Obama. The second website promotes pro-life, the idea that every child should be born and attacks Obama's views on choice, thus promoting McCain. Again, both of the sites strategies on reching their audience are effective by bashing their competetors and presenting their side thoroughly.
Paige Piper -CM
The pro choice american web site is for giving women the to abort a pregnancy. The website has a lot of articles on how much McCain is against abortion. Some of the articles on the website talk about how He wants to overturn the ruling on Roe vs. Wade. The nrlc has a ton of articles on just the opposite. They talk about how how Obama is for abortion. The websites contents show that the essentially hate abortion. The two websites do indeed contain valid information, but they are both biased. Both sides do a good job getting there point out in my opinion.
James Lemay
CMCC
Each website is very bias towards what they believe. The first website dislikes McCain and his belief on abortion. It explains that he wants to review Roe v. Wade and wants to make abortion illegal. I see myself as a republican but I really do not believe that the government should decide on an issue like this. I believe that it should be a womans choice. The second website describes Obama's view on the abortion issue and that he supports abortion to an extent. I really do believe that these websites support their cause because they do give a lot of information about what each candidate stands for.
-Dan Chabot American Politics
The first website was very much against John McCain. it was just picking everything that he was against and criticising it. the second one was showing it's distaste for obama and abortion altogether.
Nick Stone
CMCC
The first web site, which focuses on pro choice issues is quite obviously against McCain. It pretty much consisted of attacks on McCain, claiming that if he were elected we would be facing another 4 years of Bush-like policy making. Though this site was based upon the issue of abortion, vague comments like that are intended to influence the public into voting Obama. The second website was exactly the opposite of the first. This Pro life website was full of attacks on obama, offering up samples of his voting record which show his stance on abortion. They claim that Obama is against saving lives, and thats just a low blow if you ask me. then again abortion is a touchy subject that most people feel very strongly for in both directions. it really doesn't surprise me that they are endorsing certain parties in order to ensure their views on the subject are a big issue in the next election.
I believe that these sites build support for their cause by identifying with a specific party or candidate. If you look, each of these sites pretty much relates to McCain or to Obama. So advocates for either candidate may look at these sites, maybe even support them, based on the fact that they side with their favorite presidential candidate.
-Colin Mack, USM
The first article describes how McCain will carry on an administration similar to what we’ve seen during bush’s time in office. The article also praises Obama for his plans to support a woman’s choice and also his support to bring about awareness regarding unintended teen pregnancy. The second article talks about how Obama’s record on abortion is distorted and promotes the woman’s choice to kill babies. This article is against abortion and ridicules Obama on his political stand point on the issue. I on the hand believe it is a woman’s choice, however I would hope I’d never be placed in that situation for I don’t believe I’d be able to have the procedure. I’d like to stress that people must learn that they cannot control the lives of others and no one should be able to tell another what they can and cannot do to their own body. Abortion is a controversial issue, but there are far greater threats the American people should be more concerned about.
Ms. Jones from USM
Emily Brown
USM
Both groups advocate well for their position. I think that it is important that each side align themsleves with the candadite that supports their beliefs. Abortion has long been a subject that divides parties and that people feel very strongly about. It is important that we are each well informed about how the candidates will affect abortions laws.
The first website is very much pro choice. They constantly criticize John McCain's view on abortion. They feel that every woman should have the chance to chose what happens to her body. The second website has more factual evidence and does not stress its point quite as strongly. Although it is a against abortion they mainly give the reader information and let us choose.
Connor Bibb-USM
These websites are both good displaying their points and what they stand for. The websites build support for their cause by relating it to presidential candidates. This issue is already a big topic, and these sites just further fuel the debate.
Michael Pottle- CMCC
the first website is showing mccain in a bad light, especially in the video about his "air quotes". who knows if he has really good points about the topic or not, because all that this naral group is doing is depicting him in the worst light. even though it is clear (according to this site) that mccain is not pro-choice, and that is the issue, period, it still doesn't give it's viewers a chance to hear what mccain has to say. the other site does the opposite by saying that obama is mis-leading with his statements and references. it claims that he sites the illinois born-alive infants protection act as talking about the stage of a "previable fetus" which happens a month or so before birth, but the bill is written as meaning after delivery. the site says that maccain also noted obama opposed illinois legislation to ban partial-birth abortions. the idea that i get from these two groups is that anyone can be downsized or upsized at any time through context, close observation, or playing with any aspect of portrayal. everyone's got good qualities and bad qualities, everyone slips up here or there, and even if they don't it's still very easy to make anyone look however you please.- fecteau- cmcc
Each site seems to promote their views by giving only parts of the information that lends to support their cause. Because this is an election year, the home pages are filled with information about the presidential candidates and their broad stances on the issue of abortion.
The problem with showcasing the candidates in this manner, as well as pointing only to portions of the issue, is that it offers a one sided view of the entire issue. To look solely at the homepages of the two sites, it would seem that McCain is pro-life without exception, no matter what. There will never be a circumstance that arises that he can imagine that abortion might be an option to pursue. Obama, on the other hand, one site promotes as pro-choice, and the other hints that he might personally be standing at the end of people’s beds, waiting to perform abortions in person as soon as the moment of conception.
Which view is completely accurate? Probably neither; maybe one – but you don’t know what views are held by the candidates themselves unless you go check the information that the candidates give you. Sites like NARAL Pro-Choice America and National Right to Life skew information to information to bring people who already share some of the same ideals to the same spot and build upon those ideals by feeding them information laced with propaganda. What has been proven is that if something is repeated enough, people will believe it to be true, whether it is true or not.
I think both groups are effective in their campaigns and on their sites. I don’t believe that being honest has much to do with being effective, which is unfortunate.
Matthew Lynch
USM
The Pro-Life website endorses Barrack Obama and not only puts down current Pres. and Vice Pres nominees McCain and Palin, but puts down the Republican party's view on abortion in general. There was an article about McCain and Palin and how strongly they stand about abortions, but there is also information about how Bush is against it as well. There is an information link about the Bush Administration and the pro-life people involved. It also shows information in this section about people Bush himself has hired or nominated for positions. One in particular was Anti-Birthcontrol activist Eric Keroack who was nominated to lead the family planning programs at the Department of Heath and Human Services. The website itself isn't all politics though. It also offers helpful information about abortion, and contraceptives.
The National Right to Life website of course endorses McCain and puts down Obama. With this page they put even more political pages and links up to get their point across than the pro-life website does. The whole homepage itself is all about the republican stance v. the democratic stance on Abortion.
Either way, both websites use current politics with the presidential race to get their point across.By doing this it shows the websites are updated regularly with new information about either candidate and how their stance of abortion could effect the election and people's votes. - Zach Lachance USM
These two web sites are both pretty negative towards McCain and Obama. They do show signs of liking one more then the other at times, but they don't come right out and say it.
ben french, CM
The first website is completely against McCain and tries to show how selfish he is for not allowing people to make their own decisions about their lives and babies. It praises Obama's efforts in supporting pro-choice.. The second website promotes McCain for his strong stance against abortion. They show extreme cases and try to make Obama out to be a bad person and candidate for president because of the difference in opinion that he might have. Abortion is a very personal issue and should not decide a presidency based on peoples' opinions on a very private decision.
Samantha Willette USM
this is your son
Howdy,
When ever I surf on web I never forget to visit this website[url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips].[/url]You have really contiributed very good info here essentialobservations.blogspot.com. I am sure due to busy scedules we really do not get time to care about our health. Here is a fact for you. Research indicates that nearly 60% of all U.S. adults are either chubby or weighty[url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips].[/url] So if you're one of these people, you're not alone. In fact, most of us need to lose a few pounds once in a while to get sexy and perfect six pack abs. Now the question is how you are planning to have quick weight loss? [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips]Quick weight loss[/url] is really not as tough as you think. If you improve some of your daily diet habbits then, its like piece of cake to quickly lose weight.
About me: I am webmaster of [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips]Quick weight loss tips[/url]. I am also health trainer who can help you lose weight quickly. If you do not want to go under difficult training program than you may also try [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/acai-berry-for-quick-weight-loss]Acai Berry[/url] or [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/colon-cleanse-for-weight-loss]Colon Cleansing[/url] for effective weight loss.
Hey,
Do you guys watch movies in theater or on internet? I use to rent DVD movies from [b]Netflix.com[/b]. Recently I discovered that we can watch all new movies on internet on day, they are released. So why should I spend money on renting movies??? So, can you guys please tell me where I can [url=http://www.watchhotmoviesfree.com]watch latest movie Animal Kingdom 2010[/url] for free?? I have searched [url=http://www.watchhotmoviesfree.com]Youtube.com[/url], [url=http://www.watchhotmoviesfree.com]Dailymotion.com[/url], [url=http://www.watchhotmoviesfree.com]Megavideo.com[/url] but, Could not find a good working link. If you know any working link please share it with me.
Thanks
Recommended Pages:
unsecured debt consolidation loan
bad credit debt consolidation loan
debt consolidation loans bad credit
debt consolidation loans bad credit
bill consolidation loans
debt consolidation loans bad credit
bad credit consolidation loans
bill consolidation loans
bill consolidation loans
debt consolidation loans bad credit
unsecured debt consolidation loans
bad credit debt consolidation loan
bill consolidation loans
debt consolidation loans bad credit
bad credit debt consolidation loans
Post a Comment