What an amazing critical thinking activity for the history classroom! I thoroughly enjoyed my "Campaign Ad investigation" at the EASE History website (http://easehistory.org/c7guide.html). This activity is designed for students in small groups to analyze 2 campaign ads from a given election year. A worksheet is provided for the students to record the strengths/weaknesses, as well as other details, they observed.
I tried it out myself, randomly clicking to explore the ads of the 1956 election between Eisenhower and Stevenson . . . it's amazing how different the times are. Though the ads took entirely different approaches, it seems that campaign ads always want to strike a cord of fear, in one way or another, in the audience. In these examples, Stevenson focused on the "cost of living" which was the highest in U.S. history under Ike; Eisenhower, on the other hand focused on the time of peace that had been enjoyed while he was in office, and the potential work that may errupt if Stevenson is elected. Though we all know the outcome, it seems Ike simply took a better approach in his campaign . . . WAR -- the ultimate fear! Of course there was no reason Stevenson was any more likely to go to war than Eisenhower (especially considering that Ike was a general); however, his campaign directors were well aware, I'm sure, that the U.S. citizens did not demand to be swayed via reason. When most people hear "war" they run, no questions asked. The "cost of living" approach is effective, and is still used today, but the chance of war will always beat the former head-to-head. Another weakness to the "cost of living" approach is the consistent and steady inflation that has been going on seemingly forever; though, this too can only be challenged by a rational thinker (which most of us are, until it comes to election time).
Overall, it was a great activity. There's so much to learn from the setting and language as well. For instance, the role of women in '56 was clearly illustrated in Stevenson's "Libertyville" ad.
I tried it out myself, randomly clicking to explore the ads of the 1956 election between Eisenhower and Stevenson . . . it's amazing how different the times are. Though the ads took entirely different approaches, it seems that campaign ads always want to strike a cord of fear, in one way or another, in the audience. In these examples, Stevenson focused on the "cost of living" which was the highest in U.S. history under Ike; Eisenhower, on the other hand focused on the time of peace that had been enjoyed while he was in office, and the potential work that may errupt if Stevenson is elected. Though we all know the outcome, it seems Ike simply took a better approach in his campaign . . . WAR -- the ultimate fear! Of course there was no reason Stevenson was any more likely to go to war than Eisenhower (especially considering that Ike was a general); however, his campaign directors were well aware, I'm sure, that the U.S. citizens did not demand to be swayed via reason. When most people hear "war" they run, no questions asked. The "cost of living" approach is effective, and is still used today, but the chance of war will always beat the former head-to-head. Another weakness to the "cost of living" approach is the consistent and steady inflation that has been going on seemingly forever; though, this too can only be challenged by a rational thinker (which most of us are, until it comes to election time).
Overall, it was a great activity. There's so much to learn from the setting and language as well. For instance, the role of women in '56 was clearly illustrated in Stevenson's "Libertyville" ad.
No comments:
Post a Comment