Propaganda Galore
By: Jessica Rampke
There is a vast majority that surrounds our President.
There is the positive outlook that gives him praise for
feats that he has not even accomplished yet, and there
is the negative that includes accusations of false
religion and citizenship. These next slides will analyze
some of the media that have been used to display both
sides of the propaganda.
Analyzing
Political Cartoons
This cartoon uses satire to
bring up the issues that
President Obama
promised to fix and yet
has not. It includes
“crashers” that represents
the War, Health Care
Reform and fixing the
economy which were all
on Obama’s list of things
to fix. The cartoonist
wants to remind people
that while Obama is
receiving accolades for his
ideas, he has actually yet
to achieve any (at the time
that this cartoon was
published).
Analyzing
Political Cartoons
This cartoon is
derived from when
Obama was trying to
get the Olympics to
Chicago. This artist
is pointing out how
the president is
juggling all of the
issues at hand, which
is almost an Olympic
feat in its own rite.
Analyzing
Political Cartoons
This cartoon is
ridiculing how the
Nobel administration
gave Obama the Nobel
Peace prize. The
author is using
sarcasm as the tone for
the cartoon. Some
people agree with the
cartoon is thinking
that Obama did not
really deserve the
Peace Prize, but a lot
of people also think he
deserved it in it’s
entirety.
Analyzing
Political Cartoons
This cartoonist is showing
us the change in Obama’s
war plans recently that
goes against the Nobel
Peace Prize (represented
by the dove holding the
olive branch) idealism.
Obama had recently
changed his original War
plan to put more troops in
Afghanistan which, in the
cartoonist’s opinion, will
cost more lives and more
money. The bird is telling
Obama that he preferred
the old action when he
wasn’t involved with all of
the war issues.
Analyzing
Political Cartoons
This cartoon uses satire to
point out the differences
in our two most recent
presidents. The bird
carrying the olive branch
represents the Nobel
Peace Prize Obama won
and the fact that it
pooped on Bush’s head is
a reference to the “warmongering” and chaos
that the Bush
Administration had
created. The artist wants
people to show the vast
differences in the
presidents and the
positive changes Obama
can make.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama
-This article was written by Andrew Sullivan, a journalist for the Atlantic, and a media authority.
-This article’s main point was about how the argument against Barack Obama, was not really about him, but so
about the slander campaign against peace amongst Americans. Since Vietnam, there has been a bitterness
that has turned rather toxic in the media propaganda about all parties.
-He uses claims of value, using mostly the moral arguments that are used against Obama. He points out that
Obama seeks to repair America in the sense that he wants to repair the health care plan. His opposition calls
this Socialism and slam him for turning against Democracy. He also points out that Obama isn’t perfect and
has many moral flaws like his temper.
-An underlying assumption in the article is that while Obama is not a perfect person, he is possibly the only
person to positively change America.
-There is no solid evidence in the argument, but more of a description of his character and a brief history of
America’s past. There are no specific dates to validate against or citable statistics to back anything up.
- All in all, it was a pretty believable argument. While there was no evidence presented, the moral descriptions of
Obama and his policies were appealing to the average reader who is looking for a change (which just about
every American is doing right now).

www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/81955/february-08-2007/debradickerson%3FvideoId%3D81955+deborah+dickerson+and+stephen+colbert&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
This video clip is one of the best that I have seen yet. This is an argument between Debra Dickerson (a journalist
that focuses on the black society in America) and Stephen Colbert, host of the Colbert Report. The main
reason I wanted to analyze this video even though it is not a typical media as stated in the instructions for the
presentation, I think it is a propaganda agenda gone wrong.
- This interview starts off in Stephen Colbert’s typical fashion by getting directly to the point as to why his guest is
there. Debra is claiming that Barack Obama is not black in the American sense. She tries to use claims of
fact, saying he did not come from West African slave descendants so therefore is not a brother to her kind
(being descendants from slaves). She claims that his heritage did not endure the same problems and
struggles as her people, and that her people will not embrace him, but if the white people do not embrace him
because he claims to be black and support all black then the whites are racists. At this point Colbert turns the
argument against her with the best reference EVER! Quote: “So it sounds to me like you are judging blackness
not on the color of someone's skin but on the content of their character, which I think realized Dr. King's
dream in a very special way. “ That was pretty much the end of the interview. Debra came with no solid
evidence, and her claim that slaves descended from West-African wasn’t completely true (a good number
came from the south central region). She tried to use appeal to the audience of the travesty of the slave trade
to back up her reason that Obama was not black because his lineage did not suffer like hers, but she ended up
sounding ill-informed and prejudiced.
This is a great example of bad evidence. Online, this is posted
as Obama’s birth certificate, as an official Kenyan Document,
but at the top, the address is in Hawaii. This renders the
“evidence” very inconclusive since it is only a partial view of the
document.
This illustration is of Hitler being used in Obama’s campaign poster.
His opposition is making the allusion that Hitler also wanted to change,
and that led to the Holocaust. This is using slander and implying that
voting for Obama could lead to disastrous consequences, like the
deaths of millions in a war that wasn’t necessary.
In the issue relating to the Good/Evil debate of President
Obama, I have uncovered that the positive outweighs
the negative on multiple levels. The most conclusive
point is that the anti-Obama viewpoint constantly
brings to the table shaky evidence (if any at all) and
the pro-Obama side uses tactics that use his morals as
their defense. The way the information is presented
through the tone of the media seems to help with
persuasion, but all in all, it will always come down to
the evidence. (Please refer to slide 10…yuck!)