PARC Analysis "I Don't Know"

Recently the Progress for America Voter Fund (a 527 Republican-leaning organization) launched an ad in Wisconsin and Iowa that features 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta, Osama Bin Laden, and Al Qaeda operative Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. The ad links a graphic sequence of terrorist carnage against school children in Beslan , Russia , to a bombed-out passenger train in Madrid , Spain , to ground zero at the World Trade Center . The attack ad says that Senator Kerry is an advocate of cuts in defense and intelligence spending, which implies that he could perpetuate future terrorist attacks.

According to their website, the Progress for America Voter Fund is a 527 group formed to "promote President Bush's record on key issues and expose the real John Kerry's ultra-liberal agenda, as well as the record of other liberal candidates.”

In response to this ad, the Democratic National Committee has released its new 30-second television ad, "I Don't Know." This ad features television footage from 2001 of George W. Bush expressing that Osama Bin Laden would be found and captured “dead or alive” in contrast with television footage from 2002 of Bush stating no serious concern with Bin Laden, despite news reports that Bin Laden was still planning attacks on the United States.

The timing of “I Don't Know” is a function of the attack by Progress for America; however, it also aired, coincidentally, two days before the first presidential debate at the University of Miami. The media placement is indeed strategic, for the DNC only ran the ad in the two swing states where Progress for America aired their anti-Kerry advertisement – Wisconsin and Iowa.

Osama Bin Laden is one of the most recognized, reviled, and feared icons of our post-9/11 world and contemporary politics. The creators of this spot exploit the emotion inherently elicited when one sees this enemy and when recalling the events of 9/11. “I Don't Know” essentially says that President Bush should be concerned with Bin Laden's whereabouts and capture, but alas he is not.

The message of this ad is that President Bush has been remiss with the very hunt for Bin Laden that he himself declared in September 2001; he explicitly sought out the Al Qaeda leader and said he wanted him “dead or alive.” To suggest that President Bush wavered in his statements, and that he is not concerned about the (presumably) “real” terrorist threat to our nation, the ad implies that he is unfit for a second term as President.

In the ad, President Bush wavers and stammers over his concern about finding the ultimate terrorist, who gets shown in an emotive photograph and which reinforces a negative, scary message to viewers. The construction and sequence of the visual images bolster the argument of this attack ad. Aural and visual cues construct a type of graphic horror and render the viewer with a sense of anxiety that grows with suspenseful music and ends with a close-up image and zoom shot of Osama Bin Laden's face.

President Bush: Wrong War

Like some of the most memorable ads in political campaigns (e.g., “Daisy”, “Willie Horton”) this spot works with the powerful emotion of fear. “I Don't Know” begins with President Bush on a faux television screen; he recalls a (proverbial) sign from the Western frontier that read, "Wanted: Dead or Alive.” The ad cuts to a another mediated message – uttered six months later – in which President Bush states that he does not know where “he” (Bin Laden) is; Bush emphatically repeats that he is “truly not that concerned” about the terrorist. Although President Bush does not explicitly name Bin Laden here, the ad conveys that Bush is preoccupied with others or concerned elsewhere, and that such new fixation is misguided.

Key Visual Components

The ad moves at a walking, methodical pace. “I Don't Know” systematically chronicles (visual, aural) evidence on screen with flowing white text transitions. Meanwhile, the camera lingers on President Bush's face to lend him an intimate, immediate presence for the viewer. Moreover, focusing on Bush as he stammers, promotes discomfort and works to exacerbate the anxiety that gets communicated in the spot.

The visual imagery of newspaper clippings in the ad work as “evidence” of the underlying message that Bin Laden is still a threat to America and must be caught. Reality gets constructed by revealing the (presumable) truth in (supposedly) objective news reports that warn of threats to our safety and communicate impending doom.

The ad ends with a zoom into Bin Laden's face. This photograph elicits emotion that is powerful and personal for the viewer; this is to say that the ad taps into an audience of Americans living in a Post-9/11 world. This movement and imagery works as a scary reality check because it conjures emotion from 9/11 and literally/visually brings Bin Laden closer to the viewer. The flash of his (left) eye is a sort of imminent threat as the ad finishes. The powerful black and white image reminds the viewer that this dangerous terrorist was the initial target in the War on Terror; it begs the question why he has not been caught, and why he is not the subject of more concern to national security.

The colorization in “I Don't Know” is noteworthy. The news clippings and text transitions are black and white. Interestingly, both President Bush and Bin Laden are depicted similarly in black and white too. This characterizes both in a disturbing, dangerous manner. In fact, the only color throughout the ad is a bit of red (flag in the background when Bush speaks the first time) and a bit of blue (presidential backdrop when Bush speaks the second time). This is to say that the office of the presidency is redeemable, even if President Bush is no longer redeemable.

Aural Components

The DNC attacks President Bush quite cleverly in "I Don't Know" insofar as the ad is narrated by the President himself; he attacks himself in his own words. In this way, the evidence (Bush's own words) presents itself in such a way that the persuasion resonates in a more credible, yet subtle fashion.

The music in this spot also plays a subtle but powerful role as well. The serious and ominous overtones build to a climatic ending when the Bin Laden image is finally shown. The background music conveys fear and dread, and leaves the viewer hanging on the words of narration with anticipation and anxiety.

Emotionally charged ads are potent. Their stimulation, however, may work to evoke an allusion that is successfully persuasive, or may fail miserably by calling into question the ad creators' sense of propriety. In this case, viewers/voters are called to think of national security in light of the fact that 9/11 perpetrator, Osama Bin Laden, is still at large. The absence of a second major terrorist attack is rhetorically constructed. “I Don't Know” is a risky ad because it suggests another terrorist attack could be a matter of time (the implication if Bush gets re-elected), but could also signify that domestic terrorist threats have generally subsided. Ultimately, the ad is cohesive and coherent insofar as it remains speculative of another terrorist attack.

On September 27, the DNC released a statement about their newest ad. The party justifies why the Progress for America attack demands a response:

“Republicans have a long history of practicing the politics of fear with their scare tactics and smear campaigns," said Independent Expenditure Director Ellen Moran. "Their latest attack ad crosses the line, and we will not sit back and let them spread lies about John Kerry.” “We are using the President's own words to set the record straight and make clear that when it comes to making Americans safer, it is George W. Bush who has taken this country in the wrong direction.

"Bin Laden's Image Crops Up in Ads," Los Angeles Times, September 28, 2004, p. A17

On September 28, Los Angeles Times reporter Nick Anderson wrote an article, “ Bin Laden's Image Crops Up in Ads,” in which he reports analysts say “the move is risky for both parties. It reminds voters that the terrorist is still missing, but could also allude to a Bush strength.”

Several political communication scholars commented on this ad in particular because the use of such a loathed icon has serious political implications. "Fear works," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania . "It gets people's attention. And it prompts quick inferences and it diminishes analytical processing."

Shanto Iyengar, a Stanford University political scientist who tracks campaign ads, said the ad might give Republicans strength. It dovetails recent campaign statements by Vice President Dick Cheney, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and others who suggest that a vote for Kerry would make the country more vulnerable to terrorist strikes. "My guess is, they've shown the ad to focus groups, and that ad is much more likely to get action on the [response] dial," Iyengar said. "Having terrorism on voters' minds as they walk into the voting booth is the Republican strategy, and they've been very effective."

Evan Tracey, an ad analyst for TNSMI/Campaign Media Analysis Group in Virginia , said Republicans were walking a fine line. He called Bin Laden imagery "a use-it-at-your-own-risk message."

Jamieson agrees that, though Democrats were quick to counterattack the Progress for America ad, the latest Bin Laden ads have a "high risk of backfiring.” The Kerry campaign announced a response ad Saturday that accused Bush and Cheney of "playing politics with the war on terror.” Two days later, the DNC struck back harder using a Bin Laden image to criticize Bush through his own words.

Ad Analysis

Ad Context

President Bush: Wrong War

Key Visual Components

Aural Components