# data[].attributes.headline
Analysis of 3 Sources/Annotated Bibliography

# data[].attributes.subject
Analysis of 3 Sources/Annotated Bibliography

# data[].attributes.body
Nott, L 2020, Political Advertising on Social Media Platforms, American Bar Association, viewed: 23 March 2023, <https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/voting-in-2020/political-advertising-on-social-media-platforms/>.

This article focuses on the impact that adverts placed on social media has on political campaigns. The article states that millions of dollars are being used to promote and slander political campaigns in order to "build name recognition, highlight important issues, and call attention to the shortcomings of their opponents." It also discusses that at least in the United States it is perfectly legal to lie in these adverts. This has drastic effects causing misinformation and the creation of false events and actions. I found that I could use the idea of misinformation in my advert. This could help bring across my point of making the audience question the who they are voting for and even change who they vote for in the upcoming election.

Schelenz, R 2019, Why negative campaigning works — and how to fight it, University of California, viewed: 23 March 2023, <https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/why-negative-campaigning-works-and-how-fight-it>.

This webpage illustrates how negative campaigning works. It says that when creating a negative frame around a person or idea that negative frame will last longer than a positive one. Schelenz tells the reader, "our brains are hard-wired to seek out and remember negative information" instead of positive information. The article also tells that a negative ad campaign affects everyone who watches it not purely one demographic. With supporters being affected by it. I plan to paint the opposition in a negative light to create a 'sticky' negative framing around the candidate.

Yale University Institution for Social and Policy Studies, What the 2020 Election Can Teach Us About Influencing Voters, Yale University, viewed 29 March 2023, <https://isps.yale.edu/news/blog/2022/08/what-the-2020-election-can-teach-us-about-influencing-voters>.

This source shows both how positive and negative promotional campaigns effected support for either candidate. It also focussed on how strong prior beliefs effected support. The study the source is focussed on shows how both negative and positive promotion of Donald Trump generally didn't change supporters opinions of him. This was the opposite for Joe Biden, where both positive and negative promotion affected voter's opinions on him. The study found that Donald Trump had a much stronger prior belief due to his popularity in the news and media as well as him being president prior. Biden however didn't have these strong voters' opinions causing them to ask themselves questions due to political ad campaigns. I believe this identify that this source is partially unhelpful as I am not trying to persuade people with strong beliefs in their party to vote, but to make people who don't vote to vote for my party.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the past, the vehicles for political ads were newspapers, direct mail, radio, and television. In 2008, Barack Obama became one of the first candidates to use social media advertising in his campaign. That year, 2008, candidates spent a total of $22.25 million on online political ads. Since then, online political advertising on has exploded-in 2016, candidates spent $1.4 billion on them.

In the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, the public became aware of just how powerful and game changing political advertising on social media could be. Brad Parscale, the Trump campaign's digital strategist, tweeted that their campaign on Facebook was "100x to 200x" more efficient than the Clinton campaign. The reason for this became clear after whistleblower Christopher Wylie revealed that the Trump campaign's data analytics team, Cambridge Analytica, "used personal information taken without authorisation in early 2014 to build a system that could profile individual U.S. voters, in order to target them with personalised political advertisements."

It was also uncovered that some of the ads on social media weren't coming from candidates at all. A report from the Senate Select Intelligence Committee disclosed that the Russian government spent about $100,000 on Facebook ads in an effort to interfere with the U.S. presidential election. While this might seem like a paltry sum compared to the cost of a television ad, the impact of those ads was amplified by the fact that they were designed to fan division on polarizing issues, such as gun control and race relations, and then targeted toward those most vulnerable to those messages.

As a society, we are still dealing with the fallout from these revelations and trying to determine what kind of controls, if any, should be placed on social media platforms when it comes to political advertising. The debate was reignited in November 2019, when Facebook refused to take down a misleading anti-Biden ad released by President Donald Trump's reelection campaign. As the 2020 election draws closer, we need to take a look at the policies that social media platforms are implementing for political ads, and what the implications are for our democratic process.

First Amendment and Political Advertising

To understand the challenges of regulating political ads on social media, it's helpful to look at the history of political advertising in the United States and how it's been regulated in other forms of media.

There is a long and rich history in our country of candidates lying about their opponents, starting with Thomas Jefferson's campaign claiming that John Adams was going to take the country to war with France.

Lying in political advertisements is also perfectly legal. This comes as a surprise to some because commercial ads are subject to restrictions that prevent them from making false claims about products or competitors. For example, when Kentucky Fried Chicken tried to claim that fried chicken could be part of an effective diet program in 2004, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) penalized the company, requiring it to pull the commercials and submit all advertising for FTC review for the next five years.

The same doesn't hold true for someone running for political office who runs an ad making false claims about their opponent. Why? Because political ads are considered political speech, and First Amendment law protects political speech above all other types of speech. The government has more leeway to penalize or censor commercial speech, but it has very little authority to regulate political ads. The rationale behind this is that voters have a right to uncensored information from candidates, which they can then evaluate themselves before making their decisions at the ballot box.

Because no government agency can impose penalties on a candidate who lies in an ad, the only form of recourse for a victim of a false attack ad is to sue for defamation.

For practical reasons, these lawsuits tend to be rather rare. It's difficult for candidates for office to succeed in these lawsuits, given that public figures are subject to a higher standard for libel. Just like private plaintiffs, a public figure must establish that false statements of fact were made about them that damaged their reputation. But on top of that, they must prove that the statements were made with "actual malice," meaning that those who made the ad either knew it was false or didn't care whether it was true or false. While many candidates might be able to overcome these hurdles and win their suit, for many it may not be worth their time and money, especially when they're in the midst of running a campaign.

But let's say a candidate does want to sue for defamation-who can they sue? Obviously, they can go after the individual or organization who created and paid for the ad, but is the media company that actually distributed the ad to the public also liable? Different rules apply to different mediums of communication.

Newspapers are considered publishers and are liable for the ads that they run. A corollary to this is that they have full discretion over the ads they run and have no obligation to run ads that they don't want to run-in fact, it is their First Amendment right to make their own decisions about what they will print.

In marked contrast, broadcast radio and television stations cannot pick and choose what political ads they air, at least for candidates of the same office. They can either choose not to run any political ads at all or they have to run political ads for all candidates who want them. Why? Because the airwaves that broadcasters use is a scarce resource. There can only be so many broadcast stations on the spectrum, and the resulting scarcity creates the danger that some points of view might never be aired. This danger is why the Federal Communications Commission is authorized to place certain burdens on the First Amendment rights of the broadcasters in order to ensure that the public is being furnished with diverse ideas and information. Because of this, broadcasters are not liable for the ads that they run.

Cable television channels, meanwhile, aren't subject to the same regulations as broadcast networks. They don't have the same unique characteristics that broadcast channels do-they're not limited in number-which means that they have discretion over which political ads they want to run and which ones they don't. As a result, they're also liable for any false ads that run and can be sued for libel.

Political Ads on Social Media

As the newest communications medium to enter the fray, social media has several unique qualities that distinguish it from the media that came before it. Like newspapers and cable television stations, practically speaking, there is no limit on how many social media platforms exist. But in practice, there are a few major platforms that dominate the landscape-Facebook (and its subsidiaries WhatsApp and Instagram), Google (and its subsidiary YouTube), and Twitter.

Another quality they have in common with newspapers and cable television stations is that they are under no obligation to run every political ad they receive. Contrary to popular belief, social media platforms do not have to comply with the First Amendment. They are private companies that are free to set their own content policies, and, unlike broadcast stations, there's no requirement that they offer advertising slots to all candidates.

But unlike newspapers and television stations, social media platforms are not considered publishers at all. They're considered internet service providers, and because of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, they're not liable for what other people post on them. They can't be sued for allowing false content on their sites or for running false political ads.

The final and perhaps most crucial difference between social media platforms and the mediums that have come before them is that they allow for a practice called "microtargeting." Microtargeting can be broadly defined as "a marketing strategy that uses people's data-about what they like, who they're connected to, what their demographics are, what they've purchased, and more-to segment them into small groups for content targeting." In the past few years, this practice has become particularly controversial when it comes to targeted political ads.

Each of the major platforms has its own policies when it comes to what political ads they will run and what kind of targeting they will allow for them.

Social Media Policies on Misinformation in Political Ads

In October 2019, President Trump's reelection campaign released a 30-second video ad accusing former Vice President Joe Biden of promising Ukraine funds for firing a prosecutor investigating a company with ties to Biden's son, Hunter Biden. The Biden campaign objected to this ad and asked various media outlets and platforms to take it down. The responses to this request have shed light on the different approaches that companies are taking to misinformation in political advertisements.

Some social media platforms, such as Twitter, TikTok, LinkedIn, and Pinterest, have sidestepped the issue by banning political advertisements altogether-but it's worth noting that political ads were never a prominent feature on any of these platforms. The big players in this space have always been Facebook and Google.

Last year, in anticipation of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Facebook outlined its plan to combat misinformation on the platform, which included flagging content from state-sponsored media outlets and labeling news stories disputed by third-party factcheckers as "false information." So, it came as a surprise to many observers when the company refused the Biden campaign's request to take down the Trump campaign's ad, and in doing so laid out its rather different approach to misinformation in political ads. "Our approach is grounded in Facebook's fundamental belief in free expression, respect for the democratic process, and the belief that, in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is," Facebook's head of global elections policy, Katie Harbath, wrote in a letter to the Biden campaign. Facebook further explained its position in a blog post: "In the absence of regulation, Facebook and other companies are left to design their own policies. We have based ours on the principle that people should be able to hear from those who wish to lead them, warts and all, and that what they say should be scrutinized and debated in public."

In contrast, Google has opted for a different approach, explicitly stating that it would not treat ads for politicians any differently from ads for any other product. "Whether you're running for office or selling office furniture, we apply the same ads policies to everyone; there are no carve-outs. It's against our policies for any advertiser to make a false claim," the company stated in an announcement in November 2019.

Nevertheless, the anti-Biden ad can still be found on Google's subsidiary YouTube. As a Google spokesperson explained, "There's a difference, in our minds, between what constitutes political hyperbole versus something that could 'significantly undermine trust in democracy.' Political hyperbole is not new. There are politicians that exaggerate claims all the time." While Google's policy is to remove ads that contain clear and objectively false statements of fact about candidates, the Trump campaign's ad about Biden is actually filled with false implications. As Wired magazine reported,

If we pull apart the specific claims in the video, it's not so easy to find one that's provably false. Maybe Joe Biden didn't "promise" Ukraine the money, but by his own account, he told Ukraine it was conditioned on firing Shokin-a plan that he says he helped develop. Maybe that wasn't because of Hunter Biden's role with Burisma, but Shokin was in charge of the office that had opened an investigation into the company a few years earlier. The insinuation might be dishonest, but the constituent pieces are all at least true-ish.

While Facebook has essentially carved out an exception in its own policies for speech in political ads, Google's policy toward misinformation in political ads echoes the fundamental principles of libel law, which allows plaintiffs to receive compensatory damages for false statements of fact made about them, but not for opinions or insinuations. Practically speaking, this means that all but the most blatantly fraudulent ads are allowed on the platform, leaving voters to determine which insinuations to believe and which ones to dismiss.

Social Media Policies on Microtargeting Political Ads

Leaving voters to make their own decisions about whether or not they believe a politician's statements isn't necessarily a bad thing; one could argue that that's a fundamental part of the democratic process. In an ideal world, the free marketplace of ideas allows the public to access as much information about the candidates as possible, the free press evaluates the candidates' statements and exposes any falsehoods, and voters discuss the issues among themselves and then make their choices at the ballot box. This is generally how things have played out when it comes to falsehoods in political ads that run in newspapers, on the radio, and on television. Because these ads are pushed out to large and broad audiences, they immediately receive a great deal of public scrutiny.

But social media has a distinctive characteristic that makes it very different from those traditional mediums of communication-it allows for microtargeting. And microtargeting makes it very hard to distinguish real news and fake news. As the chair of the Federal Election Comission, Ellen L. Weintraub, wrote in an op-ed advocating for social media platforms to ban microtargeted political ads, "It is easy to single out susceptible groups and direct political misinformation to them with little accountability, because the public at large never sees the ad."

As a result, falsehoods in microtargeted political ads may go unchecked-and these falsehoods can have a significant impact on elections.

However, it's important to note that microtargeting's impact on democracy isn't all bad. It allows for smaller and less-well-funded campaigns to reach voters because online ads tend to be much less expensive than TV and radio spots. It also enables candidates to hone in on real and specific issues that matter to their potential constituents, as opposed to the more vague and generic messages that tend to run on traditional media-this, in turn, can increase voter engagement and turnout.

Facebook and Google presumably weighed both the good and the bad when establishing their policies on microtargeting for political ads but came to strikingly different conclusions. Google's current policy only allows political ads to be targeted to broad categories of zip code, sex, and age. The platform does allow for contextual targeting, meaning that an ad about, say, immigration policy, can be served to a person reading a story about immigration. As Google stated in its announcement of the policy update last November, "this will align our approach to election ads with long- established practices in media such as TV, radio, and print, and result in election ads being more widely seen and available for public discussion."

Facebook, on the other hand, has taken a much more permissive stance toward microtargeting, opting not to put any limits on how campaigns can target their ads. Instead, it has pledged to offer users more control over how many political ads they see and make its online library of political ads easier to browse-measures that many critics view as doing very little to expose targeted ads to public scrutiny.

Conclusion

The way that we choose to regulate a new form of communication must take into account the unique characteristics of the technology behind it. A few decades ago, the U.S. Supreme Court found that radio and television broadcasters could be penalized for allowing profanities on air. While this kind of punishment for speech would clearly violate the First Amendment if it were imposed on a newspaper, the Court noted that unlike the printed word, broadcast media is pervasive and invasive-it can enter someone's ears even if they had no part in turning it on.

Similarly, social media also possesses very different characteristics from the media that have come before it. Regulation of political ads on social media, whether by the platforms themselves or government actors, needs to take into account that allowing candidates to microtarget ads while at the same time refraining from factchecking their statements creates an environment where false information can spread unchecked.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Political Advertising on Social Media Platforms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Political advertising on social media has been a game changer for campaigns, candidates, and the public discourse. As the 2020 election draws closer, we need to take a look at the policies that social media platforms are implementing with regard to political ads, and what the implications are for our democratic process.

# data[].attributes.body
1 A political campaign for president of the US
2 A political slander campaign
3 Charity that provides quality education to underprivileged children.
4 Coffee roaster that sources and blends the world's finest beans.
5 Yoga studio offering safe and nurturing classes for every level.
6 Farmer's market showcasing local produce and artisanal foods.
7 Self-help book for unlocking your potential and living your best life.
8 Mobile car detailing using advanced techniques and eco-friendly products.
9 Fitness tracker for real-time data and personalized insights.
10 Wellness retreat with holistic therapies and activities.
11 Social media marketing course for achieving business goals.
12 Virtual personal stylist service using AI and human expertise.
13 Natural and organic hair care brand for healthy, lustrous locks.
14 Pet adoption agency matching homeless animals with loving families.
15 Home cleaning service using eco-friendly products and methods.
16 Sustainable packaging company for reducing waste.
17 Bicycle rental service for fun and eco-friendly city exploration.
18 Natural skincare products for a radiant and healthy complexion.
19 Language learning app with interactive games and personalized lessons.
20 Meal delivery service for healthy and delicious meals.
21 Luxury travel agency for unforgettable tailored journeys.
22 Handmade jewelry business with unique designs and high-quality materials.
23 Home workout equipment brand for staying fit and healthy at home.
24 Competitive sports team for showcasing talented athletes.
25 Stylish home decor company with sustainable materials and artisanal techniques.
26 Financial planning service for personalized and comprehensive advice.
27 Mental health awareness campaign promoting empathy and understanding.
28 Innovative home automation system for ultimate convenience and efficiency.
29 Subscription box service with curated products to enhance your lifestyle.
30 Customized meal planning service for achieving your nutrition goals.
31 Creative writing workshop for developing your storytelling skills.
32 Sustainable energy company providing renewable energy solutions.
33 Boutique hotel with unique design and personalized service.
34 Professional photography service capturing your special moments.
35 Revolutionary water filtration system for clean and safe drinking water.
36 Independent bookstore with a wide selection of books and cozy atmosphere.
37 Personalized nutrition coaching for improving your health and wellness.
38 Online marketplace connecting local farmers with consumers.
39 Professional resume writing service for job seekers.

40 Gourmet food truck with delicious and innovative cuisine.
41 Customized event planning service for your special occasion.
42 Online art gallery showcasing emerging and established artists.
43 Innovative skincare tool for enhancing your skincare routine.
44 Virtual interior design service for creating your dream space.
45 Specialty tea shop offering a wide variety of teas and blends.
46 Professional translation service for effective communication across languages.
47 Independent film production company creating unique and thought-provoking films.
48 High-quality audio equipment brand for an immersive audio experience.
49 Online fitness program for achieving your fitness goals from anywhere.
50 Premium olive oil company producing the finest olive oil.
51 Virtual book club for discussing and discovering new books.
52 Premium mattress brand providing the best sleep experience.
53 Virtual personal training service for customized workouts and coaching.
54 Artisanal chocolate company crafting delicious and unique chocolate treats.
55 Digital marketing agency for achieving business growth and success.
56 Innovative kitchen gadget for simplifying cooking and meal prep.
57 Personalized pet care service for your furry friends.
58 Virtual escape room experience for a thrilling adventure.
59 Ethical and sustainable fashion brand promoting social and environmental responsibility.
60 Professional copywriting service for creating effective and engaging content.
61 Virtual music lessons for learning a new instrument or improving your skills.
62 Innovative water bottle with advanced features and design.
63 Customized skincare subscription service for your unique skin needs.
64 Virtual language exchange program for language learning and cultural exchange.
65 Premium wine and spirits company offering the finest drinks from around the world.
66 Social impact organization creating positive change in communities worldwide.
67 Professional event photography service capturing your special moments.
68 Innovative luggage brand for stylish and functional travel.
69 Independent music label promoting diverse and talented artists.
70 Premium tea subscription service for exploring new and unique teas.
71 Personalized home fragrance subscription service for creating a cozy and inviting atmosphere.
72 Virtual bookkeeping and accounting service for businesses.
73 Innovative travel gadget for enhancing your travel experience.
74 Premium meat delivery service for high-quality and sustainable meat.
75 Customized beauty subscription service for your unique beauty needs.
76 Virtual cooking class for learning new recipes and techniques.
77 Independent podcast production company creating engaging and informative podcasts.
78 Innovative fitness apparel brand for performance and style.
79 Professional graphic design service for creating unique and effective visuals.
80 Educational toy company inspiring children's creativity and learning.

# data[].attributes.body
My general thoughts on this class were generally positive. I completed the second semester of the Bachelor of Film and Television last semester and enjoyed it a lot so I hope this semester will be similar. At the moment I am not very interested in digital media and I hope I find a way to enjoy the course. When at school I had to make a protional video for to become school captain that students voted for and I enjoyed that a lot so I think I might do something similar in being very over the top and comedic in promoting myself for a role in parliament or local elections.

# data[].attributes.body
I am going to create a political slander campaign against a non-real opponent in a fake run for president of the United States. The message a satirical take on the pro-gun dispute backed by the republicans. The ad will be from the created to show voters how stupid the being pro-gun is. It will talk about "liberals" and "communists" trying to steal their freedoms of being an American. It will be a take on the political environment today.

# data[].attributes.body
My target audience are 18-24 year old's who are new to voting. They may be opposed to voting due to the charades of politics but by creating a advert like this they will find how stupid the anti-gun debate is and not vote Republican.

# data[].attributes.headline
Lyndon B. Johnson vs. Barry Goldwater - Daisy

# data[].attributes.subject
Lyndon B. Johnson vs. Barry Goldwater - Daisy

# data[].attributes.body
New-York Historical Society 2020, Presidential ad: “Daisy” from Lyndon B. Johnson (D) vs. Barry Goldwater (R) [1964—FEAR], Video, YouTube, viewed: 23 March 2023, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRp_BUMeapg>.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Presidential ad: “Daisy” from Lyndon B. Johnson (D) vs. Barry Goldwater (R) [1964—FEAR]

# data[].attributes.headline
Critique of Lyndon B. Johnson vs. Barry Goldwater - Daisy

# data[].attributes.subject
Critique of Lyndon B. Johnson vs. Barry Goldwater - Daisy

# data[].attributes.body
This advert is a presidential advert created by Lyndon B. Johnson in his presidential campaign against Barry Goldwater. The advert features a child playing in a field which then turns into a countdown counting down to a nuclear explosion.

This ad was made to insight fear into people claiming "If you vote for Barry Goldwater a nuclear war will start." This was done during the Cold War where fears of nuclear war with the Soviet Union were common all around the United States.

I will use scare tactics like this in my advert to imitate how a Republican ad may sound. Instead of nuclear war I will use buzz words like "liberals", "woke" and "antifa".

# data[].attributes.headline
Marjorie Greene: Save America. Stop Socialism.

# data[].attributes.subject
Marjorie Greene: Save America. Stop Socialism.

# data[].attributes.body
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Marjorie Greene: Save America. Stop Socialism., Video, YouTube, viewed: 20 March 2023, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5LEC8Vuxhc>.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marjorie Greene: Save America. Stop Socialism.

# data[].attributes.headline
Critique of Marjorie Greene: Save America. Stop Socialism.

# data[].attributes.subject
Critique of Marjorie Greene: Save America. Stop Socialism.

# data[].attributes.body
This ad is a political campaign ad created for Marjorie Greene, a Republican running for Congress.

In this ad the main focus is showing the audience the ideals of Greene and what she stands for. She uses explosions and guns to make her ad stand out as well as to create a sense of urgency in her audience. She also uses popular topics of dispute and buzz words like; gun control, open borders, green new deal, and socialism.

I want to create a advert very similar to this but in a satirical way meant to humour the audience and truly question the ideology of the people who they are able to vote for. I believe this advert is very helpful as I want to create something very similar but in a more humorous tone rather than a serious one.

# data[].attributes.body
ABC TV & iview 2019, Political Attack Ad: Scott Morrison, Video, YouTube, viewed: 20 March 2023, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHSViaI5MwU>

# data[].attributes.headline
Critique of Political Attack Ad: Scott Morrison

# data[].attributes.subject
Critique of Political Attack Ad: Scott Morrison

# data[].attributes.body
This ad is an attempt of a satirical political attack ad on the ex-prime minister of Australia, Scott Morrison.

The ad focuses on trivial everyday things that the prime minister does for media opportunities. The advert uses a narrator to imply that he's not running the country but playing around not dong running the country. They use laugh tracks to show that the attack is a joke and that there is no grounding for the attacks.

I want to try and create a similar tone in this video in my own. I will differ to this attempt by not using laugh tracks and will focus on just one idea for the whole advert.

# data[].attributes.body
After creating my mind map I believe that using satire as a device to influence young voters will work very well. I will continue to follow this idea.

# data[].attributes.body
The White Hat (Information):
Now that I have defined my topic I already know that creating a negative connotation around a person or idea can last longer and influence a broad audience. I now need to investigate how to best use satire and how to not have this overseen as Republican propaganda instead. I will investigate further online and explore media that uses satire.

The Red Hat (Emotions, Feelings and Intuition):
The emotion I want to stimulate is humour and disgust. If I make a product that induces these emotions I will have achieved my goal.

The Black Hat (Critical Thinking):
The main hazard in this video is that it may be seen as radical right-wing propaganda instead of satire. I will need to make sure that this is avoided at all costs.

The Yellow Hat (Value, Benefits and Why Something Should Work):
The value of the advert is that it causes the audience to ask questions to themselves about how much they value the lives of others.

The Green Hat (Creativity):
I could use big camera movements, visual effects and sound effects. These can be used to emphasise specific words and ideas. I could also have a lot of movement in the characters on the screen to stimulate the viewers. I could use a car driving or a person running etc.

The Blue Hat (Overview and Organising):
The main reason for this advert is to put the American Republican Party in a bad light. The goals are to create a funny video criticising the Republican Party through using satire. I will make sure to create a easily definable stance on the topic to stop it from becoming radicalised. Next I need to research into how to properly use satire and write, film, edit and review the promotional video.

# data[].attributes.body
Attention: I intend to use bright colours and loud sounds to grab the audiences attention as well as trigger words and images. These will be of both guns and children because of their stark differences to one another. I will use words like "guns", "communists" and "liberals" to also bring attention as they are very popular on the internet at the moment.

Interest: I will use the topic to make the viewer interested in the ad. The topic of guns is very popular and if done right I can make the viewer interested in the topic at hand. This will be done by using hyperbole, overplaying the Republican by creating an almost redneck character who is the "typical" Republican.

Desire: I will use a humorous approach by using satirical depictions of Republicans to over-emphasise how stupid the need for guns is in our society. This will create an emotional response in the viewer making them continue to watch the ad to see why it was made. The colour palette made will also help create this as the bright red and blues have a psychological effect of trust and anger, further adding to the emotional response.

Action: I will continue the blunt tone by having a big block text reading "I value guns more than my family, I vote Republican". This will cause the viewer to feel that Republicans follow these values, and if they don't they'd want to change who they vote for.

# data[].attributes.body
The will focus on myself talking in a Southern American accent talking about how guns are needed for protection from the tyrannical government. I will have an off camera voice asking questions to the southerner about the legitimacy of owning the gun. They will ask about his thoughts about the lives of children and will answer by saying that he will protect the kids from the other guns with a bigger gun. I will use over the top sound effects and visual effects including explosions and gunshots to stylise the video. The video will contain bright high contrast colours throughout making it as eye catching as possible to make viewers continue to watch the video. At the end I will use a graphic as a call to action for the audience reading, "I value guns more than my family, I vote Republican" making the viewer believe that they will become like the redneck in the video if they vote Republican.

# data[].attributes.body
I think my target audience will feel very overwhelmed by the overall size of the political debate. After they have seen my video I want them to have a clear understanding of how the Republican Party values their guns and the life of innocent people. I will use a humorous tone to convey this because younger people generally react more to a comedic tone rather than a formal tone focusing on facts. I believe that blue and red will help to convey this tone into action due to them being associated with anger and passion. I believe that a Sans Serif font will create this tone successfully.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose these colours as they represent the American flag which associated the ad with America and the presidential election. I also chose the red as it will invoke anger toward the Republican in the video and his ideals. The blue will be shown at the end and will invoke responsibility. The target audience will feel responsible to make a change and not become that character.

# data[].attributes.body
I will use this font as my title font as it is very punchy and easy to read.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this font as it is easy to read and can works well with the other sans serif font I chose.

# data[].attributes.body
I want the fonts used to be very punchy and easy to read. I want the call to action to be as 'in your face' as possible so the audience have a takeaway from the video as they are almost prompted to say it aloud.