Going Negative: What is the Problem with Political Advertising?

In 2010 Czech Republic experienced such lame and pathetic political campaign race between ČSSD and ODS parties, that it turned many people into doubting whether there still is a point of political advertising in Czech country what so ever. The campaigns were based from a large part on negative advertising - sending false messages using very shallow attacks, inaccurate information, and absurd emotional appeals. 

In fact, such strategies are getting surprisingly common in political advertising. Just remember the last presidential election in the USA. It turns out that now-a-day politics wears nasty and nastier trademark. On one hand, this strategy could be a move towards honesty; it could push politicians to act more honorable when all secrets they keep in the closet could so easily get in a form of a juicy attack ad. On the other hand, it could make the elections only messier and more misleading if all the candidates play hard and untruthful cards. 

In short, political advertising could be considered the most important subdivision of advertising, considering that voters decisions about politics are important for the future of the country, while what detergent they buy does not have any serious social impact (Berger, 86). That is why political advertising and its roles, rules, and effects might deserve out attention even more than aspects of product advertising. Nevertheless, for example in the USA, political advertising is the one the less restricted and the most unethical (Jackson). The true is, heading this direction it might totally loose its primal purpose – to help to decide, to explain, to provide information.

Reference: 

Berger, Arthur Asa. “Political advertising”. Seeing is Believing: An Introduction to

Visual Communication. Rowman and Littlefield, 2011, ed.4.

<http://www.aef.com/pdf/BERGER~Ch6.pdf>

Jackson, Brooks. “False Ads: There Oughta Be A Law! – Or Maybe Not”.

FactCheck.org. June 3, 2004. May 10, 2007.

<http://www.factcheck.org/2004/06/false-ads-there-oughta-be-a-law-or-maybe-not/>

Political Advertising on the Hook

To start, let me recommend three web pages that discuss some issues connected with political advertising, explain some principles, and describe political advertising powers and system. The first, “False Ads: There Oughta Be A Law! – Or Maybe Not” by Brooks Jackson on FactCHeck.org, brings up the fact that in the USA there is no legal protection of truth in political advertising what so ever, what means that political candidates can lie in their ads as much as they like about anything without facing any legal consequences. That applies in the same way for negative advertising as well. Moreover, according to the law, media has no right to refuse a political ad based on an opinion that it is untruthful.  Therefore, in the USA politicians can freely produce tons of dishonest spots falsely attacking each other, and every TV or radio channel must accept them unless there is something technically wrong with them. As Jackson explains, that legal mess is happening under the power of the First amendment of the USA constitution, that protects the free speech. At the same time, the author questions possible solutions to that problem and points out that in the states where legal restrictions of political advertising were sat, the effect was rather insufficient. These are very important points regarding our debate, so I strongly recommend getting some more information on that web page. (http://www.factcheck.org/2004/06/false-ads-there-oughta-be-a-law-or-maybe-not/).

            Secondly, there are “Negative Campaigning Is Good for America” by Dick Morris on U.S.News & World Repor and “Political Advertising Regulation:
An Unconstitutional Menace?” by Stephen Bates on GATO Institute that technically support the opposite approach to political advertising – no boundaries. Morris claims that people can distinguish for themselves what is true and what is a lie. However, he still reminds us that political advertising should be trustworthy. Then, he makes a strong point saying that negative advertising actually helps to uncover the true and that it is one of the few ways in which voters can get the real picture. There is definitely something about that point; negative advertising for sure can help to uncover the bad side of the politicians. However, in my opinion, attacking ads are too often untruthful and the voters do not always distinguish the lie, what makes Morris` approach a little naïve. Nevertheless, that article represents one strong theory about negative advertising and so it is important to look at it (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/10/06/dick-morris-negative-campaigning-is-good-for-america).

 On the other hand, Bates rejects the idea of any restriction at all. He represents the opposition of Jacksons approach, claiming that legal boundaries to political advertising are unconstitutional and undemocratic, and that the first amendment is non-negotiable. In short, he says once we have a free speech law, we should not under any circumstances make exceptions. He also goes deep inside political advertising legal issues, discusses some proposals for advertising legal restrictions, comments on specific events, and he also makes an interesting comparison of how much people gain from advertising and the news. This article is very long and complicated, but I would still appreciate your attention on it (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa112.html).

Reference:

Bates, Stephen. “Political Advertising Regulation:
An Unconstitutional

            Menace?”. Gato Institute. September 22, 1988.

            <http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa112.html>

Jackson, Brooks. “False Ads: There Oughta Be A Law! – Or Maybe Not”.

          FactCheck.org. June 3, 2004. May 10, 2007.

          <http://www.aef.com/pdf/BERGER~Ch6.pdf>

Morris, Dick. “Negative Campaigning Is Good for America”. U.S.News.

         October 6, 2008.

         <http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/10/06/dick-morris-negative-campaigning-is-good-  for-america>

Political Advertising According to Berger: It Does Matter!

In his “Seeing is Believing: An Introduction to Visual Communication”, Arthur Asa Berger discusses concept of negative advertising, its pro and cons, its importance in western society, its aspects and strategies, and finally its relation to the truth.

First, when explaining his reasons to focus on this topic, he says: “from my perspective, political advertising can be seen as the most important genre of advertising,” (86). In order to demonstrate, he underlines the fact that politics plays an important role in our lives, and our choice of leaders is crucial, not like picking chips for a movie. In short, our choice of chips can be based on any possible nonsense, because there is no social consequence following, but our choice regarding politics should be based on valuable information. Moreover, because most people source mainly from TV spots, political advertising becomes the primal source of information for voters and that makes it and its content extremely important. “Advertising is a tool that enables politicians to send their messages to a large number of people who tend to be apolitical, who are not particularly interested in political campaigns,” he explains (86). “It is estimated that by a ratio of something like four to one, Americans get their information about the positions of candidates from advertising rather than the news,” (93).


Further, the author divides political advertising into categories and ranges them according to their appropriate timing alongside the campaign. He distinguishes identification spots, argumentative spots (“which present candidate positions on issues,” he explains), attack spots (or negative advertising), and “positive visionary appeals, which are used at the end of a campaign to give voters a reason to vote for the candidate,” (93).

Next, he discusses effectiveness of political ads and concludes that: “People always say, in polls, they don’t like negative campaigns but voting records seem to indicate that they are affected or influenced by them. Numerous case studies of elections show that negative campaigns, full of attack commercials, are effective,” (92).

Flowingly, he raises the issue of media approach towards political advertising and criticizes their lack of challenge pointed to the politics: “Curiously, what the news programs on television decide to cover is often shaped by the candidates’ political advertisements,” he claims and explains: “If the news accounts are inconsistent with the ad, the power of the ad is diminished. When the two are consistent, the power of both is magnified,” (93). Then he discusses what should be done to challenge politics: “But news can only reframe ads if reporters question the legitimacy of their claims, point out the false inferences that they invite, and so on. Without such reframing by reporters, campaign ads have the potential to shape the visual and verbal language of news, and in recent campaigns they have become increasingly successful,” (93).

On the end, he moves to strategies political advertising uses. To do this, he provides a table to picture the scheme and numerous examples from political campaign history.

          

All his points have a great value in this debate about issues in political advertising, and so I can only encourage you to get some more details in the actual article:

http://www.aef.com/pdf/BERGER~Ch6.pdf

Reference:

Berger, Arthur Asa. “Political advertising”. Seeing is Believing: An Introduction to

Visual Communication. Rowman and Littlefield, 2011, ed.4.

<http://www.aef.com/pdf/BERGER~Ch6.pdf>

Daisy Ad Herself

Reference: 


FunnyHaHaFunnyHaHa. Youtube. Apr 9, 2008.


        <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtYpnGZr6TA&feature=fvst>

Daisy Ad and Her Charm

In October 6, 2010 Finlo Rohrer from BBC News, Washington published his article “Do attack ads crush the opposition?”, that maps the history of negative political advertising in the western world. In short, he raises the question: “Do the “attack ads" work and what makes a good one?”

First, he makes a clear distinction between positive ads and negative ads. He defines them as:

 “Positive advertising: Is about the candidate themselves, emphasizing their strengths and setting out policy platforms.”

“Negative advertising: Advertising aimed at attacking an opponent, usually drawing attention to past actions and policy statements, but also to character and private life.”

Further, in order to answer the raised question, he provides in the article numerous famous controversial examples and discuss in detail their effectiveness and strategy. One especially interesting attack ad discussed in there is the “Daisy Ad”, a real masterpiece inspiring many ad-makers in the world until now. “The Daisy ad from 1964 didn't even mention Johnson's opponent,” Rohrer explains. “It was left to the viewer to infer that the meaning was that Goldwater's policies could lead to cataclysm.”

Finally, he discusses their role and effectiveness. “People generally hate it but they seem to work very well. Even though according to one study, positive ads are still the most effective,” he concludes.

The most important parts of Rohrer`s article are the specific examples and their analysis that greatly help to understand what are attack ads in general, what is a well done attack ad and what is an unethical one, and finally, how have these concepts developed. For more information: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11473185

Reference:

Rohrer, Finlo. “Do attack ads crush the opposition?”.  BBC News Washington.

         October 2010.

         <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11473185>

A Strange Case of Alan Grayson and "Taliban Dan Webster"

In September 2010, a Florida Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson hit hard his opponent Dan Webster in a negative ad focusing on Webster`s approach to women rights (Condon). From a technical point of view, the ad was effectively done – a real nasty piece of art. In short, it used Webster`s recent speech; specifically, it took some of his parts out of context and repeated them like a mantra until it was clear enough that Webster was a misogynic religious fanatic rejecting women’s rights. Specifically, a female narrator says in the ad: "Religious fanatics try to take away our freedom, in Afghanistan, in Iran and right here in Central Florida". Finally, to make sure the effect was stable, on the end f the ad Webster was called "Taliban Dan Webster (Condon)." (Obviously, it would be hard to look for any factual information for voters in this ad.)

One might say it is ridiculous; who could ever take such a message for granted? The true is, even ridiculous pieces have their time, place, and effect. According to Berger, once released, they cause a sufficient damage to be considered efficient and that damage cannot be undone even if the ad was proven untruthful million times (96). In Jackson’s words: “First, prosecutors can’t move quickly enough to cure the damage caused by a last-minute, false attack”. Simply, nobody can erase the idea from voters` minds once they saw the ad (Jackson).

Moreover, this case is also a great example to show that legal restriction to truthful information in political advertising would not be always useful. In this situation, even though the ad was clearly out of line, it would be very difficult to try to prove it wrong since it did not present any specific untruthful facts. After all, the message talks Grayson`s personal opinions and cites what Webster really did say. The fact that it was taken out of context and that the whole message about Webster being a fanatic is not accurate does not matter since there is no explicit lie about what Webster did or said. After all Grayson could always say the thought it was true (Jackson).

To conclude, this attack ad is an example of negative advertising sending a misleading message to voters and yet not offending any rules. Nevertheless, it has no informational value and therefore it is totally useless for voters. In my opinion, strategies such as this ad are way out of adequate tools of politicians; to be honest, I think politicians could do much better than this pathetic attempt to attack. However, I must admit that this is a great example of negative advertising that will hardly ever be worked out even if the world accepts restrictions of political speech.

           

 Reference: 

Berger, Arthur Asa. “Political advertising”. Seeing is Believing: An Introduction to Visual    Communication. Rowman and Littlefield, 2011, ed.4.

<http://www.aef.com/pdf/BERGER~Ch6.pdf>

Condon, Stephanie. “Alan Grayson Labels Opponent "Taliban Dan Webster". CBC News. September 27, 2010.

            <http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017692-503544.html>

Jackson, Brooks. “False Ads: There Oughta Be A Law! – Or Maybe Not”. FactCheck.org. June 3,           2004. May 10, 2007.

            <http://www.factcheck.org/2004/06/false-ads-there-oughta-be-a-law-or-maybe-not/>

Unbelievable Attack ad Against Webster

Reference: 


digshullabaloo. Youtube. Sep 25, 2010. 
      
       <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWdyf9eSkqQ>