No defense for political ads that lie, distort
Negative political ads are actually good for the public and the political process, a Vanderbilt University political science professor argued in an op-ed piece in Sunday's Press. I think he needs to revise his research methodology.
John Geer, who has written a book called "In Defense of Negativity," says the party in power needs to be held accountable, and the opposition party is responsible for that. "In any choice that people make," Geer says, "whether you're voting for a candidate or you're buying a car or a home, you want to know the strength and the weaknesses. And negative ads provide those weaknesses." No argument there. But what about ads that intentionally distort or outright lie, as is commonly the case with political advertising? How does that serve the public?
I also strongly disagree with his contention that negative advertising doesn't turn off voters or erode faith in government. He says it often tends to "activate" them. The only ones it may activate are those who are so disgusted with the negative ads of one candidate that it inspires them to vote for the other one.
Am I wrong about this? Do the negative campaigns make you feel good about our democracy? Do they make you want to run to the polls to vote?
Here's the full text from the op-ed: http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061029/OPINION/610290366/1030
John Geer, who has written a book called "In Defense of Negativity," says the party in power needs to be held accountable, and the opposition party is responsible for that. "In any choice that people make," Geer says, "whether you're voting for a candidate or you're buying a car or a home, you want to know the strength and the weaknesses. And negative ads provide those weaknesses." No argument there. But what about ads that intentionally distort or outright lie, as is commonly the case with political advertising? How does that serve the public?
I also strongly disagree with his contention that negative advertising doesn't turn off voters or erode faith in government. He says it often tends to "activate" them. The only ones it may activate are those who are so disgusted with the negative ads of one candidate that it inspires them to vote for the other one.
Am I wrong about this? Do the negative campaigns make you feel good about our democracy? Do they make you want to run to the polls to vote?
Here's the full text from the op-ed: http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061029/OPINION/610290366/1030
posted by Randy Bergmann at 10:59 AM
1 Comments:
Disgusted or activated are two words that do not apply to my reaction to negative political advertising. These ads only make me more curious to find out just what the candidates propose to do if elected. And I'm not impressed by claims like lowering taxes and ending the war in Iraq because I want them to give me the exact information on how they will pay for the critical needs of running our government with less income and also how they plan to prevent the spending of our money for useless trips and entertaining,grants to causes that seem laudable but that we can't afford and giving out contracts without fair bidding. Also tell us how we can pull out of Iraq admitting the truth which is that we had started a war that we should have known the consequences of but didn't.In fact I would like to see these wildly expensive TV ads eliminated in favor of more debates and more information on news programs and printed articles about the above facts.
Post a Comment
<< Home