Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Mauled by Attack Ads, Incumbents Weigh Tighter Rules
Here is a link to the New York Times talking about attack ad's and the views that incumbents and some Republican's have on their use. I found this article pretty interesting, you always see these ad's come up on TV and I have always wondered how these parties/people could agree that this is an ok thing to do. I personally would prefer to see a candidate that didn't use this technique, it says a lot about a person's character/ability if they feel the need to discredit everyone else they are competing with. Imagine a candidate that instead of trying to push his opponents mistakes would try to find a solution to these problems that would be something. Honestly though they do not even talk about how they are going to fix the problems mentioned they just talk about how bad the other guy is. Although I think that these ad's are morally questionable, I do not think that we should stop candidates from using them, if we did it would be in violation with their right to free speech. Unless of course the things they are saying are straight up lies or they used illegal methods to obtain this info (Ralph Nader and GM when illegal wire tapping was used to record Ralph's phone)we can't dictate what they can and cannot say. So all in all I would prefer a candidate that would say it how it is and not feel the need to destroy anyone's reputation to win. Although this will most likely not have a major affect on the current election, it shows that some people do not agree with use of smear campaigns in candidates ad's and may be a point of debate following the election. For reference I am linking two ad's from Obama and Romney that use this technique if you are interested.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Supreme Court did a number on this one. Because they let unlimited spending on advertisements, if five or six were not enough for one day, they made ten or fifteen. All this money spent is a waste...a HUGE waste. The candidates should really spend it on something more useful, something that will actually benefit their campaign, not something that bothers the people. I see all of these adds (Las Vegas now up to almost 79,000) and honestly, I think I wouldn't vote at all if I could. I would hate the commecials that only bash each candidate that I would not vote. I have an idea...work together for once! Oh, but wait, that's too difficult (at least that's how I see it).
ReplyDeleteAs for the video's that Seamus posted, Romney's singing scares me...he sounds like so un-enthused and zombie-ish, it is kinda disturbing. As for Romney's ad, his people just did a cut and pasted job of a presidential debate...whoopy doo.
I still can't believe how many ads are being aired. I'm just glad that I don't live in one of the heavy battleground areas and have to see these kinds of ads all the time. The amount of money being spent on these ads doesn't bother me, what bothers me is what the candidates are saying about each other. I just can't justify the lying and bashing each other so harshly. However, I agree with Seamus that I don't think much can be done. Everyone has a right to free speech, presidential candidates included. However I think that voters can use this to truly see the character of the candidates. The kinds of ads a candidate is willing to put their name on really reveals a lot about them and their character.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that a lot of money is always wasted for campaigning and especially through these attack ads. They never leave a positive message of why you should vote for their candidate anyway. They just bash their rival candidate until they run out of money. Like Seamus said, it would be wrong to take away people's rights to say whatever they want, but these always show the worst of people, even if it's the people creating the ad. The numbers of ads shown in Nevada and Ohio shown in this article send the same message as the one last week. People are growing tired of these ads. The best ads would be ones where they speak about their policy or give reasons why they're the best candidate, not why the other guys are the worst.
ReplyDeleteBecause both campaigns use attack ads it is impossible for the public to send a message saying that they want the negativity to stop since the winner of the election will have used attack ads in either case. They are more effective than people give them credit for though. Maybe more informed people who have actually thought about the issues thoroughly could see though the rhetoric, but many people do not pay as much attention to politics and after they are bombarded with the same ads enough times, they remember and think about them subconsciously. The campaigns wouldn't spend millions of dollars on them if they were not effective. I guess it sucks for us though when you think about all of your elected officials trying to brainwash you before they're even elected. I think a way of limiting the attack ads is by restructuring the campaign finance laws so super PACs like citizens united or unions cannot donate money to campaigns or make their own ads, since they are largely responsible for funding many of the attack ads this year.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dan that all of these ads are disgusting, but the organizations making them are not dumb. They must have evidence that they work. If we had a proportional representation system, campaigns would probably use less attack ads because they would be less effective. You would have to split your ads between multiple candidates from multiple parties, so more campaigns would settle for talking about why their own policies or candidates are good.
ReplyDeleteI think campaign donations create a fundamental conflict of interest for our politicians. They are indebted to special interests with deep pockets that will convince those elected officials to vote on policies without their constituencies' best interests at heart. People should be able to spend their money however they want, but in turn congressmen should have to excuse themselves from votes that help or harm institutions that donated a big chunk of change to their campaigns.
I agree with Dan and Johnny Mac that all of these ads really are just appalling. That being said, I am not naive enough to believe that they will ever stop. Like it or not, these ads have been around ever since we were younger. Is there room for improvement in them? Most definitely, why not put what you would do instead!? Will we ever be truly rid of them? I highly doubt it, but if you ask me if they want to waste that much money on ads let them. At least they are circulating some money, even if it is mostly to the television and entertainment industry. I just think its really immature and childish to bash someone through an ad. Debate? That's fine because you are face to face but television is just low.
ReplyDeleteI do not support people spending large sums of money on offensive ads in an attempt to discredit the presidential candidates. The vibe i get from being bombarded from these ads are that they are very extreme and sometimes even false. I believe it would make much more sense for the candidates to spend money on other aspects of the campaign, or at least make the majority if not all their ads positive with their plans of the future. I believe that the aggressive ads are not benefical for either party.
ReplyDeleteI do not support people spending large sums of money on offensive ads in an attempt to discredit the presidential candidates. The vibe i get from being bombarded from these ads are that they are very extreme and sometimes even false. I believe it would make much more sense for the candidates to spend money on other aspects of the campaign, or at least make the majority if not all their ads positive with their plans of the future. I believe that the aggressive ads are not benefical for either party.
ReplyDeleteThere is no question that there are too many negative political ads. But a lot of those negative ads are not supported by the candidates. They are paid for by Super Pacs and other interest groups. That's why it is so important to see who "paid for the content of this advertising". That being said, the candidates and their campaigns should have less negative campaigns. They can be using that money for something more productive. I also think that negative ads are counterproductive. People just turn off the TV, or change the channel when they see these adds. They don't want to hear it. Its not like a repetitive bombardment of negative adds is going to make a voter realize they should vote for the other candidate. I really surprised politicians have not figured this out already.
ReplyDeleteI think Dan brings up a really great point. To the uninformed, these ads probably do hold some significance because it is their only exposure to politics. However, if they care so little about politics they probably won't be voting anyway.
ReplyDeleteI honestly am just glad we aren't a battle ground state. I don't foresee change with their presence because at this point I think that are just a permanent part of campaigning.