Pop Ups and Internet Ads: Effective Political Tools?

As I was searching for something to post about this week, a pop up ad came up, as seen here:

I clicked on the "Vote Here Now" to see where it would take me (although usually I wouldn't do this pop ups for fear of viruses attacking my precious macbook), and this is the link it goes to: http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/Repeal-Obamacare/Repeal-Obama/id/4/kw/America/?promo_code=B995-1


This is a survey that asks several questions regarding a person's opinion on the new health care plan, other Obama bills, and the person's voting preferences. 2 Questions on this survey seem slanted in a way 

that makes Obama's plan look bad and could skew results to have people to oppose it. So obviously asking the question in a slanted way makes it a biased survey. Furthermore, people are only getting to this page if they are intrigued by the pop up ad, which generally means they are opposed to Obamacare, and want to have their voice heard.

Aside from that, the pop-up ad phenomenon is another form of "new media" that we didn't really discuss. It is interesting to me in particular since my father works for a branch of Google that deals with internet ads (this was originally DoubleClick, but it was bought by Google). In general, when an ad pops up on my computer screen, I close it as fast as I can. I hate the accumulation of windows on my computers and especially pop ups that I don't care about. Maybe that is why this ad is so striking: usually pop ups are about some vacation or some website that has no relevance to me, but this one was different. I wonder how much pop ups, and other ads on the sides of internet pages, can really affect someone's opinion.

The Catch

One of the catches with media and publicity is that once information has been spread, the damage is done. It doesn't matter if this information was true or not, or if someone later comes out and changes their opinion or take on the events. Once the propaganda or story breaks, there is no turning back.

There are historical examples of this phenomenon, such as Watergate, but now a new modern day example has emerged: the Goldstone Report.

The Goldstone Report was written after a U.N. fact finding mission on the Gaza conflict, in response to Operation Cast Lead. The report was released in September 2009 and caused an uproar amongst Israel supporters because it accused Israel of war crimes and crimes against humanity. This was another blow to Israel's reputation and definitely contributed to the growth of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

Now, Richard Goldstone, the head of the original report, has announced that he and the other committee members regret the way they negatively portrayed Israel's behavior during Cast Lead. In this article, Goldstone faults Israel for not cooperating with their mission and thus leaving them without crucial evidence to prove Israel's innocence. In addition, he points out that the Goldstone Report is "the first time illegal acts of terrorism from Hamas are being investigated and condemned by the United Nations." Furthermore, he claims that he did this to try to help Israel and change the bias of the U.N. against Israel. I think he's just saying these things to regain support from those who were and are enraged and outraged by the Goldstone's negative portrayal of Israel, now that he sees he was wrong.

The problem with this new found "regret" is that the damage has already been done. The Goldstone Report has been used to spread anti-Israel propaganda, and all the more so because it was headed by a Jew. Now that Goldstone is coming and in essence saying "whoops, it wasn't really as bad as I told you it was," it won't change the opinions of people who were affected by the original document. In fact, I predict that this reconsideration won't yield even nearly as much attention as the original report did.

Do you think this announcement will change world opinion towards Israel, or at least restore the opinion people had prior to the Goldstone Report? Do you think it will have any impact whatsoever?