The two presidential campaigns got into multiple kerfuffles last fall over the accuracy of campaign advertising. It's a pretty common development.
Here's just one example.
But now that we have the benefit of time and distance, did it matter? In what ways does campaign advertising sway the electorate? Should we expect it to be "accurate"? How is that accuracy determined in the arena of politics? Isn't one man's misinterpretation another man's firm conviction? Are these ethics questions only or should we think about legal ramifications?
Friday, January 30, 2009
Ads and Accuracy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
In retrospect, it's obvious that this kind of advertising has little to no effect as seen with the election outcome. Pointing out the flaws in a particular candidate only reinforces the beliefs of those who had sided with him already. Those who sit on the fence can be pushed away with negative advertising rather than pulled over because negativity is a big turn-off. Rarely do we get together over things we hate, but rather unite over things we care about. Pro-lifers don't band together because they hate abortion but rather because they value the sanctity of human life. Therefore, I doubt that most of Obama's votes came from Anti-McCainists rather than those who believed in his vision for the future.
I disagree with Nick. The Obama campaign is proof that false advertising cannot stop a good candidate from winning the presidential election. However, John Kerry received bad press over his Purple Heart. Critics believed that, although the bad press was halted, it crippled his campaign.
Another example of misleading campaign press was a fox news anchor's remark on Obama's 'fist pound' with his wife. (It's not advertising but I feel it is relevant) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_vmQrTi3aM&feature=related This is another example of how Obama was badly misrepresented. She referred to this modern, urban 'handshake' as a "terrorist fist jab." Ignorant people already thought Obama was linked to terrorism. Fox news enforced that stereotype. The anchor apologized. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj8oIy6Crrs&feature=related However, I saw the "terrorist fist jab" news report live but I did not see the apology until I youtub-ed the clip.
Therefore, I think that bad press is an issue. If I did not see the anchor's apology, I would still think she accused Obama of "terrorist fist jab[ing]." I appears that bad press spreads fast and has repercussions, while the apology/ retraction gets lost. These issues all seem to be covered under the first amendment. It seems implausible for these to be controlled by law since we have the right to criticize our government. Even if an ad, which is critical or false, is pulled off the air - it still has repercussions. The severity of these repercussions vary by case.
I find it very hard to believe that John McCain approved this commercial. If the NYT is writing an article clearing up the fabrications and gross distortions, couldn't McCain's campaign staff see that this commercial goes too far? I think we should expect campaign advertising to at least get facts right.
Campaign advertising should be accurate but almost everyone who absorbs it considers it to be an unreliable source. If anything, advertisements serve as background noise for other media outlets to cover. Even though I don't think advertisements sway the electorate, they are here to stay and will remain so for years to come.
I think that the full effect of this commercial is difficult to determine. Obviously, it did not help McCain enough to win the election. Negative campaign tactics seem to be more and more common in each election. While I disagree with the practice all together, negative commercials alone do not violate a law. However, any campaign commercial that presents incorrect information should have legal ramifications. Candidates should not be permitted to lie to the American public in order to win over votes. I'm not sure how much an incorrect commercial sways the electorate, but I'm not willing to take any chances. Incorrect information in a campaign commercial should be answered with a fine, at the least.
But now that we have the benefit of time and distance, did it matter? In what ways does campaign advertising sway the electorate? Should we expect it to be "accurate"? How is that accuracy determined in the arena of politics? Isn't one man's misinterpretation another man's firm conviction? Are these ethics questions only or should we think about legal ramifications?
Though the effects may not be drastic enough to tip an election toward a certain candidate, negative campaign ads certainly influence the electorate. Oftentimes, this effect may not be what the candidate intended. In my personal opinion, a negative campaign ad reflects poorly on the sponsoring candidate moreso than the candidate being attacked. Despite their prevalence, negative ads always cause me to pause and wonder what weakness the sponsoring candidate is trying to hide by focusing his attention on attacking opponent. While campaign ads may not have much influence over the outcome of elections, I think they can increase cynicism and loss of faith in politicians and the political process.
In my mind, the only reason McCain's attack ads didn't work was because of the economic collapse and his inability to convince anyone who actually listened to or read anything at all that his economic approach wasn't the same as Bush's.
When the nation's economy is getting napalmed and you want to discuss Bill Ayers and ACORN (an entity that actually has no capacity to commit voter fraud), you really don't stand much of a chance.
I don't think there is an iron rule that explains the nature of attack ads. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. It depends on what else is happening.
Generally speaking, I think attack ads and campaigns that focus on peripheral subjects like abortion and gay rights only work when rational ignorance is at a high level, or in other words, when unemployment isn't out of control and people don't need to know anything about economics or politics to put food on their tables.
Despite popular belief, negative advertising really does affect the electorate. One of my J201 papers required some research of ads and their effectiveness, and I found studies that demonstrate the impact of negative advertising.
Post a Comment