Ad Wars

Are negative campaign ads more effective than positive ones? Or, perhaps a more pertinent question is this: is what the media and others say about those negative ads more effective than the ad itself. Both campaigns have positive ads, but CNN, the Washington Post, and ABC and other entities are not driven to report on one uplifting and positive ad after another. No. This week, ABC and just about every other news source clamored to speak on the Spanish-language ads. Both McCain’s and Obama’s were riddled with misrepresentations. The Obama one even resorted to the acidic and controversial mention that McCain was friends with Limbaugh. Do Americans go to the fact checker website to research the claims made by either candidate, and if they do, will they remember the truthful information or the thirty-second, cleverly worded commercial designed to not ask too much of the average attention span? I really don’t know the answer. As cynicism creeps into my mind, I would venture to guess that negativity and arguments that refute one candidate’s claims tend to be more memorable and popular.

Because I have respect for the American voter, I would like to think that one’s political affiliation and actual vote are hardly swayed by ads, positive or negative. Their power is rooted in the fact that they stir the emotions of the viewer, they’re humorous at times, and most importantly, they’re more likely to be shared or talked about among people and journalists. At this crucial time in the election, I would prefer ads from both sides that focused on the issues, as opposed to ads that point fingers at each other.

Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized