Negative
Campaign Ads
The
history of negative campaigning goes back to over one hundred years ago. The most effective would be advertisements
attacking an opponent's personality, record, or opinion. There are two types of ads used in negative
campaigning: attack and contrast.
Attack, identifies risks associated with the opponent, often exploiting
people’s fears to manipulate and lower the impression voters have of the
opponent. Contrast, contains information
about both the candidate and the opponent.
The information about the candidate is positive while the information
about the opponent is negative.
Negative
campaigns existed before Super PACs.
Lyndon Johnson implied Barry Goldwater would start a nuclear war. Grover Cleveland was accused of having a
child out of wedlock. Andrew Jackson was
accused of killing a man, and having a wife who was a bigamist. Lastly, John Quincy Adams, supposedly
procured prostitutes for the Russian Tsar.
The
presidential election of 1800, Jefferson vs. Adams, is a perfect example of
negative campaigning. Jefferson accused
Adams of being a monarchist who wanted to move the country to a monarchy under
Britain and France. Adams accused
Jefferson of being a misogynist, which is a person who hates, dislikes,
mistrusts, or mistreats women, and of having an affair with an African American
woman (which turned out to be true).
Not only
can negative campaigning be done by word, it can also be done through
television. The most famous and
successful negative ad in American political history is without question,
"Daisy Girl," which ran only once on television during the 1964
presidential race before President Lyndon Johnson pulled it from the
airwaves. It was replayed on TV news
several times. The ad successfully
scared Americans about the potential for the nuclear war, if Barry Goldwater
were to be elected president. This ad
implies that Senator Goldwater is a reckless man and Lyndon Johnson is a
careful man. The "Daisy Girl"
television ad opened with the image of a young girl plucking petals off a
flower when an ominous countdown is heard in the background. At zero, there is a blast and a mushroom
cloud appears from the nuclear explosion.
The ad
was considered so effective that the liberal group Moveon.org made its own
version of "Daisy Girl" in January, 2003. The newer ad, which ran over 30 seconds and
cost the group $400,000, was an attempt to warn American voters about the
looming war in Iraq and to argue for continued United Nations weapons
inspections in the country. So, the real
question is, do negative ads really work?
A new study shows negative campaign ads in the race for the White House
have skyrocketed since 2008. According
to the Wesleyan Media Project, seventy percent of presidential campaign
commercials ran so far has been negative.
Also, experts say part of the reason for all this negativity is the
"skyrocketing involvement of interest group." This activity is up to 1,100 percent from
four years ago.
Some
studies suggest that negative campaign ads are more easily remembered and
therefore have a greater influence on voter’s attitudes and vote
decisions. Other research provides
evidence that the opposite is true. Lack
of military service, past personal financial problems, actions of a candidate’s
family members, and past drug and alcohol abuse are considered by some, to be
information that's not relevant.
As for
this presidential election, Obama and Romney both have their fair share of
negative campaign ads against one another.
The Pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA action made a negative ad where a
steelworker who said his wife lost health coverage and died shortly after his
plant closed under Bain Capitals ownership.
Factcheck.org found the as to be misleading because Joe Sopter’s wife,
Ranae, had lost coverage at least a year after the plant’s closing and died
five years after its closing.
Mitt
Romney has an ad where Obama announced a plan to “gut welfare reform” signed by
President Clinton in 1996 and that under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to
work and wouldn’t have to train for a job, they just send you your welfare
check. However, the administration
didn’t want to do that. The Department
of Health and Human Services announced it would wave work requirements if
states had better ideas.
All in
all, negative campaigning in used in just about every election, big or small,
and in mild or harsh cases. People would
argue that negative ads do effect a person’s voting decisions and others would
say it doesn’t make a difference. No
matter what, an election will always contain a negative ad here and there, but
it’s the one’s that we pay attention to that will determine whether we believe
them or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment