What is maturity? As people grow, they attend higher levels of schooling, form tighter relationships, get a car, and can even vote. Voting brings one a feeling of maturity; that they can finally do something that those younger than them cannot and those their senior can, a privilege of sorts. But how can people feel mature about voting when the advertisements that they see everyday for their presidential candidates are full of immaturity?
Understandably, each presidential candidate wants to make himself look better than the other candidate but are angry and accusing commercials really going to make a candidate look better or more qualified? When does advertising become more of a grade school quarrel and less of a mature debate?
As referenced in class, McCain’s campaign has recently started putting out more damaging commercials towards Obama which really begin to attack Obama’s character. McCain has put out a commercial accusing Obama of being a pervert who wants to teach sexual education to young children. He also has called Obama nothing more than a celebrity, implying he is incompetent to run the country.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/08/hot-chick-dig-o.html
Obama’s advertisements have recently taken to accuse McCain of being a monster who wants to take away abortion rights from women all over the country. The commercials aim to instill fear in the viewers.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=238514
The Handbook of Political Communication Research discusses the role of political advertising on television and its role. It states, “In many countries, for instance, do not require-or even allow-their candidates or parties to purchase space or time for political advertising. In contrast, some countries provide free time on public broadcast outlets for candidates and parties to promote themselves and their ideas” (156).
In some other countries, there is no political advertising allowed and yet the people still end up with a leader. Whether they have much knowledge of their leader becomes questionable.
The advertisements have become more and more expensive every year. The Handbook reports that, “In the last four presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000) spending for political advertising has been at record levels. George H. W. Bush and Dukakis together spent over $80 million on electric advertising in 1988 (Devlin, 1989). In 1992, the three-candidate race resulted in combined spending of over $120 million for Perot, Bush, and Clinton (Devlin, 1993). Clinton, Dole, Perot, and their respective parties spent nearly $200 million on advertising time in 1996 (Devin 1997) but were topped by Al Gore, George W. Bush, and their parties, with $240 million in reported advertising expenditures (Devlin, 2000)” (157).
So obviously, these slanderous advertisements are not coming at a cheap price. It is sad that so much money goes into what appears to be a childish game of “he said, she said” when the money could be going to helping people around the country.
In the years before television, candidates were forced to promote themselves by travel because there was no other way for them to get their name and image available to the public. Currently, in a world of internet and television, the candidates do travel to advertise but do not focus on the same things that past presidential candidates did because they have the safety net of the television and internet advertisements.
If candidates did decide to travel to every little place in the country to get their name out there, expenses would no doubt be even higher because of all of the traveling they would have to do. However, if candidates did this and rid the world of the slanderous television campaigns, would the expenses be worth it?
So the question is what is the better option? Should presidential candidates continue to invest in accusing advertisements that seem to be based solely on attacking their opponent and less about promoting themselves? Or should they spend more money and stop investing in accusing advertisements and start investing in traveling to even more places to promote themselves in a positive way?
10 comments:
It is true that today many presidential candidates spend millions of dollars on television advertising. Many of these costly television ads are indeed very negative, despite the fact that Americans get very tired of all of the negative campaigning (just ask anyone whose been watching tv in the last few weeks); however, negative campaigning is a necessary evil, if you will, of the political system. According to Kaid, despite the fact that the media emphasizes the cons of negative campaigning, this type of campaigning does indeed provide a discussion of the pros and cons of policy concerns and candidate positions on the issues, which is at the very heart of the free choice system embodied by democratic principles (171). Since so many of the features about candidates on news television shows include images and not position stances, it is good that even though these commercials are negative, they are able to trigger a response and interest in the voter about the candidates' stances on the issues. More voters educated about the issues and the candidates' opinions about them will help them to make a more educated choice about who should be the next leader of the free world.
It seems that when making advertisments the candidates have regressed back towards a middle-high school style of elections where you would expect this type of behavior when running for class president. While there it isn't apropriate there either we just brush it off to them being kids but what happens when you see the same behavior in the people running for our country? Personally i like the question proposed but i feel as though we will never stop the candidates from taking cheap shots at each other in order to gain more voters. I watched the youtube clips on this post and agree that there is no real substance to these commercials. The task as gone from getting the message across to who can create a witter low blow commercial. So with that said it is my belief that we will not be able to change the way in which politics are now but perhaps we could alter the way in which we watch these childish commercials. On page 180-182 of the handbook it mentions advertising on the internet and in light of the whole Obama anouncing his vp choice via the internet i think it is an interesting outlet to look into. If a candidate is willing to anounce something of high importance over the internet why can't much of the campegning that is done be on the internet as well? this would also cut down on the massive amounts of money being handed out to make these because as Kaid states "For candidates, parties interest groups and even induviduals, the Web has many of the same advantages attributed to political advertising (control of the message and widespread distribution) but with the added advantage of low costs" (180) it then goes on to mention how in the 1996 elections "10 percent made their voting decisions based upon information collected primarily from the internet" (181) this just goes to show you that already in 1996 people were using the web as an outlet for making decisions. While i don't think we will ever get rid of the low blow commercials maybe in the up coming elections we may see the candidates using less money on tv commercials and perhaps that in turn will allow them to spend the money else where such as traveling to more cities.
I believe that negative advertisements are fine as long as they are attacking their opponents according to their ideas and policies and not their personal life. The two examples of ads that were given about celebrity is an exact example of what campaigns should avoid. There is enough of that sort of attacking in the media and through blogs that the candidates themselves should be focusing on the real issues and not playing up all of the other distractions included in the race. Another thing that must be taken into consideration is the placement of these advertisements. I don't think that the typically red or blue states will change their minds on who they will vote for based on negative advertisements. Citizens in the swing states however may be more influenced by these ads and they could have more of an impact on their decision. I also think that there is a way to go about negatively advertising your opponent without being unethical. The Handbook of Political Communication Research says, “whether it occurs in political advertisements or some other forum, is the very heart of the free choice system embodied by democratic principles” (171). Citizens should be informed about both negative and positive aspects of the two candidates, and it is just a matter of advertising ethically and not being dishonest.
I think what has annoyed me more than the negative ad themselves is the fact that both of the candidates have said they promised to not run negative ads this election season. Liars!
Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceHhRdaO_Gs
McCain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZf05ijVFtc
Living in an age of media, these ads are going to be broadcast to the public. While I fully believe the candidates should spend more money on travel in order to get their message out to the American citizens, it is an unrealistic notion. It is just easier to put ads on television. While it is a less personal way of campaigning, it allows the candidates to promote their ideas and image to a wider audience. In a perfect world, there would be no slanderous campaigning, the candidates would be able to meet each and every citizen eligible to vote, and the elections would run smoothly. This, however, is a fictional scenario that will never come to fruition.
In addition, I hate to use this cliché, but feel as though it fits the situation—any press is good press. Even though many of these political advertisements bash the opposing side, the candidate is still getting his/her name and face out to the public. This is obviously extremely important when trying to run for office. As Kaid points out in chapter 7 of the Handbook of Political Communication Research, “issue ads seem to be particularly effective in raising a candidate’s image ratings” (169). I believe this statement applies to the negative advertisements as well. In criticizing an opponent’s message or stance on issues, a candidate may be promoting his own image. Kaid also states “that most political advertising, whatever the medium, concentrates more often on issues than candidate image” (161). As is shown through the current political advertisements, it is not necessarily about promoting one’s own issues, rather belittling or arguing the opposing candidate’s stance.
While I do not believe that negative advertisements should be outlawed, there should be limitations on them. The ads should be able to attack an opponent’s ideas on policy, as long as they are true. Calling Obama a pervert because he wants to start early in teaching sex education is uncalled for and unprofessional. Elections are not a gentlemanly sport, but low blows and unsportsmanlike conduct should still garner a penalty shot. So McCain and Obama, play nice!
I think its time for John McCain to take a look at his running mate before he implies that Barack Obama is not fit to run this country, that he is just another celebrity. Anyways...
Political campaign ads are a big part of every election. I mean I dont think I can envision a time where there will be a presidential election with no ads on t.v. These political ads are a part of the American culture and it would be nearly impossible to just do away with them. But, yes, I do think there is far too much many spent in there direction. I mean just a few years ago in 2000 George Bush and Al Gore spent $240 million in advertising expenditures (Kaid 157). Clearly, there is some cutting back to do but then again who are we to say a President can only spend so much on his political advertisements.
The handbook says, "Across more than five decades of research on political advertising, no topic has been more dominant than the discussion of whether or not campaign commercials are dominated by image information or issue information (Kaid 160)."
This seems to be an issue everywhere with the presidential election, issue v. image. We have seen that in political campaigns that image is becoming more dominant than ever. It is simply everywhere. Image has become an unwritten prerequisite to presidency. But, televised political advertising does not fit into that problem, it concentrates on the issues. At first glance I did not agree but taking a look back most of these commercials do concentrate on the issues whether it is women rights, tax cuts or the war in Iraq. Although the issues may not be depicted so clearly to the viewer they are still there and that is why televised political advertising is so important. Yes, it is important for candidates to be on the road but realistically is it possible for them to hit ever town and city in the U.S.? No. Political advertising fills in the gaps of where the candidates can not physically reach out to.
Just something that I remembered that I want to add to my post: Even Hillary Clinton acknowledged that negative ads, while distasteful, are a necessary evil. While I was interning for her campaign during the primaries in New Hampshire, I noticed that for every positive tv ad issued by her campaign, there was a negative attack against Obama's experience, although I noticed that these ads were not put out by her campaign, but by PACs, including Emily's List, which was a fervent supporter of Hillary. Obama, however, did not run as many negative ads as Hillary did, due to his desire to keep the tone of his campaign positive. This falls in line with the research that Kaid found:"female candidates began to use negative advertisements as frequently as, and sometimes more often than, their male counterparts" (177). This certainly was the case with Hillary and Obama in New Hampshire. However, it was not the negative advertising that helped Hillary to win the New Hampshire primary, but her "crying" incident in a diner. Just like what Kaid states, female candidates find it difficult to walk the line between being tough but yet being too aggressive that it would drive away voters (177). Although Hillary was able to overcome this difficulty for New Hampshire, it still hampered the rest of her campaign.
Samantha this was an awesome blog. I completely agree that with age comes maturity and responsibility but if potential voters are basing their votes on such immature campaign commercials – how responsible can their vote be? Although I do not think we have seen a suplus of immaturity as far as ads go, it is my belief that the most immaturity I have seen so far was from the conventions themselves. As we already discussed, they were huge spectacles with millions of viewers but such immature and downright nasty behavior as we have seen in such speakers as Guiliani or Palin , I do not see how that can help them get the vote. To me, the whole “community organizer” commentary was as immature as it could get.
While it is widely understood that a lot of campaigning is based on “ he said , so she said” tactics, I feel like the facts and issues at hand are becoming lost now that McCain became more offensive and as a result, so did Obama. Relevent to the negative ad behavior, it was interesting to see that, “ Despite the potential for backlash, research has shown that negative ads can be more effective when sponsored by a third party or independent source.” ( Kaid, 173) This helps to make more sense, because it makes the ads seem les of a personal attack and more of an outside promotion from people with no benefit, just firm beliefs.
Also in the readings, there was a focus on the effects of negative advertising on voting behavior. It has been determined that there has been a “ a clear conclusion that negative ads do affect voting preferences” ( Kaid, 174) It continued, “the contect in which negative ads are shown can also affect vote likelihood. For instance, negative ads are particularly likely to affect vote decisions when shown in a news environment.” ( Kaid 174, Kaid, Chanslot & Hovind, 1992) Doesn’t this make sense? In a news environment where people turn for “just the facts” and to stay informed, there would be a much higher credibility towards ads that attack, and have more of an influence on peoples emotions and decisions when it comes time to cast a ballot.
If you want to keep up to date on the ads that have become more like a boxing match than a campaign, here is a good site to read : http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/15/west.negative/
And here is a good site that blogs about the legal circumstances in which attack ads can be used. http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/archives/political-broadcasting-independent-groups-start-running-presidential-attack-ads-what-are-the-legal-implications-for-broadcasters.html
The fundamental debate about attack based political advertising is not whether it is worth the benefit. Most research shows that candidates like George W. Bush who used a lot of negative media end up looking strong. A candidate like John Kerry, on the other hand, who is barraged with personal and political attacks and doesn't respond or doesn't respond well is often left looking weak.
Barack Obama used his convention as well as Joe Biden's to send a message in this regard. Joe Biden whom every pundit in the world expected to come out and play the "attack dog" during his convention speech did just the opposite. Obama in turn took the burden on himself to hammer McCain on policy arguments and personal differences. The risk here is Obama could undercut his own message of change by participating in a war of words so typical in these type of contests. But the reward is much greater in that Obama can assert himself as the dominating member of the ticket and put to rest the idea that Biden was the only one in the campaign with the credibility to attack McCain.
Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now. Keep it up!
And according to this article, I totally agree with your opinion, but only this time! :)
Post a Comment