Analyzing propaganda techniques in American presidential elections Presidential Propaganda 2012 in Historical Context Romney Campaign's Strategy and Propaganda Techniques Results Elections before 1960 The 1960 Presidential Election between Kennedy and Nixon Trends between 1960 and 2004 The 2008 and 2012 presidential elections in historical context. The Candidates Romney's major strategy was to make the election a referendum on President Obama's economic policies. Some of Romney's most effective propaganda techniques were: Black & White Fallacy Demonizing the Enemy Flag Waving Intentional Vagueness Romney's campaign failed because it was not able to use these techniques to change the narrative of the campaign.
The 2012 Presidential Election Governor Mitt Romney Born in Detroit, Michigan Former Governor of the State of Massachusetts Won the Republican nomination after a primary fight between other candidates such as Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Herman Cain. President Barack Obama Born in Honolulu, Hawaii Former Senator from the State of Illinois Incumbent President after winning 2008 Democratic Primary over Hillary Clinton and the General Election over Senator John McCain. Obama Campaign's Strategy and Propaganda Techniques Obama's major strategy was to make the election a choice between himself and Governor Romney, not a referendum on Obama. Some of Obama's most effective propaganda techniques were: Oversimplification Demonizing the Enemy Red Herring Euphoria Obama's campaign succeeded because it was able to convince the electorate by making the election a choice between himself and Romney.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The initials 'CB' are used by Americans to designate the Citizens' Band. This frequency band, which began to be used in the 50's, enabled American truckers to break the monotony of long distances and to get help when they broke down; hence, the spirit of solidarity this means of communication has always tried to transmit. At first, it was mostly used by truck drivers who, in introducing its principle, also created a special language based on Americanisms, contractions and coded expressions. PRACTICAL INFORMATION The use of CB radios is no longer subject to any license or tax today, the taxes being paid by the importer.
It is, however, imperative to modulate with a radio which corresponds with the essential requirements of the European Directive R & TTE n° 1999/5/CE according to the standards EN 300433 and/or EN 300135: 40 channels 4W PEP AM/ SSB and/or 4 W FM. Transmissions are legally made on 40 fixed channels de 26.965 MHz to 27.405 MHz and, depending on the radio, on one or more of the following three modulation modes: amplitude modulation AM (the most commonly used mode in France), frequency modulation FM (communication over short distances of flat, open ground) and single side band SSB (communication over long distances, according to atmospheric conditions). These radios can be divided into three categories: 'mobile' radios are designed to be installed in a vehicle. 'Portable' radios are autonomous and have no exterior power supply. The term 'base' is used for radios which are designed for use in a set place in a residence.
CB RADIOS AND SAFETY CB radios are a means of communication for the general public, offering a wide variety of possible uses (leisure, safety, friendship, etc.), which have won acclaim. Today, CB's are recognized as being a factor which improves prevention and safety on roads. Certain organizations (fire departments, the Red Cross, associations.) which have incorporated them in the process of initiating emergency aid, are continuously tuned in to channel 9, the safety channel, so that they can act on the first call from a CB radio. The other special channels are 27, which is a call channel, and 19, used mainly for directions by truck drivers and other road professionals to prevent accidents or traffic slow-downs.
THE SQUELCH The squelch (or silencer) is a control found on all CB radio transceivers. This function is used to reduce background noise when there is no communication. It is an adjustment which must be made precisely and repeated frequently in order to avoid reducing the reception capacities of the radio. This is because the level of radio-electric background noise is not constant and varies according to the time of day and the geographical location.
In April 1996, Albert Bertrana, Technical Director of the Groupe PRESIDENT, presents to the specialized press an automatic squelch adjustment system called ' Automatic Squelch Control' (ASC). AUTOMATIC SQUELCH CONTROL ASC continuously evaluates the received signal and existing noise. The signal/noise ratio determines whether a signal is heard or not. Applying surface mount package and microelectronic technologies, ASC uses more than 40 semiconductors, between transistors and diodes.
CB radios, which have always been a security element in vehicles, are now even more so since drivers will no longer have to make manual adjustments, or check the noise level, since ASC does this for them.
Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during an event at the Grand Kremlin Palace in Moscow in December. Mikhail Svetlov, Getty Images Never mind voters.
In the 2016 US presidential election, the biggest force for change may have been hackers. At least, that's the way things are shaping up as we learn more details about the hacks, which focused on publicly releasing emails and other strategy documents reportedly written by key Democrats and party officials, including presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Everyone, from the US's leading spy agencies and politicians to the public at large, is caught up in disagreement about who the hackers are and what they wanted to accomplish. The past two weeks have brought for investigations to learn how much the hacks really influenced the elections. Food lion employment handbook.
Add to that public comments this week by, the and the on who knew Russia was involved and when. What's more, stories from the New York Times and Washington Post hint at disagreements between the CIA and the FBI over why Russia conducted the hacks.
To round it all off, one notable public figure is arguing we don't know for sure that Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, were behind the hacks: President-elect Donald Trump. He maintains that opinion, even though the US intelligence community and the forensic experts who first examined the hacked systems are highly confident Russia is the bad guy here. NBC News reported Wednesday that US intelligence officials believe 'with a high level of confidence' that in the effort to interfere in the election. President Barack Obama has little doubt the Russians were behind the hacks.
And in an, he said that the US would respond. 'When any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections. We need to take action,' Obama said. 'And we will - at a time and place of our own choosing.
Some of it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be.' The Russian government, in turn, has called the US accusations groundless. 'They should either stop talking about that or produce some proof at last,', according to CNN, citing Russian state news agency Tass. The debate has now shifted from what happened to why, with questions over how much a foreign power might have influenced this year's divisive and controversial presidential election.
The thing is, we never learn all the details. Writing about writing citation. 'There's no sign in a computer saying, 'Haha, we're the Russians - we did it!'
' said Sumit Argawal, a former senior adviser for cyber innovation in the US Department of Defense. Argawal now serves as vice president of product at cybersecurity company Shape Security. 'There has to be an interpretation and a judgment rendered by experts.' Not up to speed on the election hacks? Here are a few of the questions being asked - and what the political players have to say about them: What exactly got hacked again?
The debate is focused on damage done by emails reportedly stolen from the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the personal email account of Hillary Clinton Staffer John Podesta, among others. (See below for what may have happened to Republicans.) In an op-ed published in the Washington Post late Thursday, what he called the FBI's failure regarding the hacks and called for an independent investigation. 'The election is over and the damage is done,' Podesta wrote, 'but the threat from Russia and other potential aggressors remains urgent and demands a serious and sustained response.'
For the record, there hasn't been any evidence found of hacked voting machines, according to election officials or security experts. Trump won the election because of the way the US voting system works, even though Clinton won the popular vote. 'They did not change the results of our voting machines to the best of our knowledge,' said Josh Corman, a cybersecurity expert who directs the Cyber Statecraft Initiative, a program at the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security. On elections and cybersecurity. Was it Russia?
The theory that Russia orchestrated the hacks - a notion now widely embraced by the US intelligence community - was first proposed by a cybersecurity company called Crowdstrike, which also found. The DNC called in Crowdstrike earlier this year when it realized its systems had been compromised. In June, naming Russian hacking groups as.
In October, the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security announced their shared assessment that. At the time, intelligence officials didn't say whether Russia was pulling for one candidate over the other, just that it was trying to 'interfere' with the elections. But is there any doubt it was Russia?
Trump is the lonely voice insisting we don't know if Russia was behind these hacks. He reiterated to Time magazine last week his claim that it could have been Russia, it could have been China, and it could have been some random guy. That's not what US experts believe. Trump based his claim on a distrust of US intelligence agencies. The CIA's history is filled with points of controversy, from its involvement in the Iran-Contra affair to its intelligence gathering leading up to the Iraq war. 'These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,' Trump said in a statement last week. (Washington Post saying the George W.
Bush administration played down disagreement among CIA analysts about whether Iraq weapons programs had ceased.), Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said it's fair to question assertions from the intelligence community. Sentou yousei yukikaze ost raritan. But, he added, 'in my experience our men and women in the intelligence community.
Are very careful and very deliberate, and if they weren't, they wouldn't be in the positions that they occupy.' Why did the Russians do it? That's what members of Congress want to know. Senators and representatives have proposed five separate investigations - four carried out by special committees - into the hacks, their purpose and their impact. Lawmakers have been briefed by both the CIA and the FBI. Those who have been briefed say the the hacks were meant to favor Trump as a candidate, while the the Russians wanted to undermine Americans' faith in the election system, according to the Washington Post.
The CIA's judgment is based partly on but didn't leak the information they stole, according to a report Friday by the New York Times. Wait, the Republicans were hacked too? Reince Priebus, the chair of the Republican National Committee, Will regular Americans ever know what really happened? If a congressional investigation does take place, we could learn more about why the intelligence community is so confident about Russia's role in the hacks and whether the hacks were meant to favor Trump. But so far, the creation of any special panels to investigate the hacks. Last week, President Obama's homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, said the president has ordered a report from the intelligence community on its investigations into the hacks.
Pc Wizard Portable
But we don't know whether the results of that review will be declassified. Cybersecurity experts with military and intelligence experience say this documentation is extremely important. But that doesn't mean it's vital for the public to know. That's because for the intelligence community to show its work, it has to reveal how it conducts its spy operations. For example, it could be damaging to tell the world that American intelligence agencies are monitoring a server that Russian spies use for their hacking operations, said David Kennedy, a cybersecurity expert who worked in intelligence with the US Marine Corps in the early 2000s. Spies call that burning your sources.