Since 1952, political advertisements have been part of thepresidential election as a campaign tool to win over voters andundermine opponents. Whether the message is positive, negative ormisleading, some people say the ads only get voters’attention but have limited impact on which candidate theychoose.
Advertising professor Kartik Pashupati said the political adsare directed at certain groups of people.
“I’m not the expert,” Pashupati said,”but they are clearly directed at two groups and one is theundecided voter. For others, the negative ads just reinforce thenegative image of the opponent.”
Attack ads and their responses are being progressively launchedbetween President Bush and Senator John Kerry as Election Dayapproaches. Also according to Pashupati, negative ads are used morefrequently.
“In order to get attention, candidates feel they need todiscredit their opponent,” he said. “They use negativeads because they are trying to create a point of difference fromthe other candidate. But, negative ads have a drawback because theydo not tell what the candidates stand for.”
Though candidates continue to launch attack ads, Pashupati saidhe does not think the ads influence most voters’ decisions onwho to elect.
“If you have already decided to vote for Kerry and you seea swift boat ad, you are not going to change your mind,” hesaid. “They may influence voters who don’t thinkthrough issues. It’s what scholars call peripheralprocessing. Peripheral people are more likely to be affectedbecause there is not involvement with the issues. They judgewhether the candidate looks good on TV.”
While not influencing decided voters, Pashupati said thehalf-truths laced through the ads have other adverse effects onpeople.
“In general, critics of advertising allege that it makessociety more cynical,” he said. “And I think it istrue. They serve to make the public at large more cynical becausethe public doesn’t know what to believe anymore. If politicalads are a bunch of lies, you start to not believeanything.”
Journalism professor Camille Kraeplin said she also does notthink most people believe the messages the ads are attempting tosend out.
“At this point in the campaign, most people alreadybelieve what they are going to believe,” Kraeplin said.”They aren’t going to change their minds based on anadvertisement. Maybe a few in-between people will be swayed, butfor the most part, probably not.”
Those who do not believe the ads may not be wrong for beingskeptical. Web sites like www.factcheck.org and TheDallas Morning News‘ “Ad Watch” analyze theads revealing misleading statements and quotes taken out of contextin order to portray an image favorable to the candidate.
“It gets tricky with the context, music and mood,”Kraeplin said. “The way information is presenteddoesn’t create something entirely accurate. I don’tthink there are out-right misrepresentations—the wholecontext of the ad leads to it, not misrepresented facts.”
An example of this misrepresentation is Bush’s attack adentitled “Searching,” which was recently examined inthe Ad Watch. This critique explains how the ad takes some ofKerry’s statements out of context. The ad quotes Kerrysaying, “It was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein,and when the president made the decision, I supported him,”then “I don’t believe the president took us to war ashe should have.” The ad leaves out Kerry’s fullstatement, “I am, yes, in the sense that I don’tbelieve the president took us to war as he should have, yes,absolutely. Do I think this president violated his promises toAmerica? Yes, I do… Was there a way to hold Saddam Husseinaccountable? You bet there was, and we should have done itright.”
The ad did not have factual errors, it just took Kerry’squote out of context to portray a certain image and that isallowed.
“Political advertising is not considered commercial speechand gets more protection and that is how they can take quotes outof context,” Pashupati said. “It is veryunethical.”
Bush ads are not the only ones presenting misleadinginformation. There is an analysis on www.factcheck.org thatexplains how Kerry’s ad entitled “The Truth onTaxes” includes legitimate facts, but only includes certainones that ultimately present a message other than the truth. In thead, Kerry says, “Here’s the truth on taxes. Afternearly four years under George Bush, the middle class ispaying the bigger share of America’s tax burden and thewealthiest are paying less. It’s wrong, we need to cut taxeson the middle class, not raise them.” The fact check pointsout that the top 20 percent of income earners now pay a smallershare of the reduced tax burden, but so do the bottom 40percent of earners. Another aspect the fact check details is thatthe ad does not define the “middle class,” leadingviewers to think their tax burden was increased, when it wasactually decreased for all income groups.
Also reported in the Ad Watch analysis of”Searching” is that Kerry launched a response ad thesame day “Searching” aired. But, according to Kraeplin,responses to attack ads are not as significant to the campaignanymore.
“At different points it has been important,” shesaid. “It is important when voters’ opinions are notcemented. We are at the point now that it is notimportant.”
Kraeplin said she does understand why the candidates continue torun attack ads, especially in the battleground states.
“It seems to me in the climate right now, voters are soheated that politicians need to break through in some way andattack ads are a way of doing that,” Kraeplin said.”They are after people in the middle. They feel the only waythey are going to reach people in the middle is to do something big— make a big noise — and really grab us by the throatand say, ‘listen!'”
