Why Negative Campaign Ads? They Work

By Brigitte L. Nacos 

Like U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in his last reelection campaigns, Hillary Clinton, New York’s junior Senator, can afford a rare luxury even in her first reelection try: positive campaign ads that tell voters about the Senator’s good work in the service of New Yorkers. No need to even mention the opponent in the face of the broad support Senator Clinton (as Senator Moynihan earlier) enjoys in New York City, the surrounding areas, and in upstate regions as Washington Post columnist David Ignatius experienced the other day. But unless a race is widely perceived as decided before Election Day, campaigns turn to negative ads that attack the opponents' character, judgment, or policy positions—or all of the above. Unlike positive, image-building campaign ads, attack ads work because they get attention.

One week before Election Day, the major political parties spent just over $1 for positive ads devoted to the advertising candidate’s qualities and $10 for negative, nasty, attack ads according to the Associated Press. The only surprising aspect here is the fact the two parties combined spent actually $17 million for positive ads—more than one would guess in the many states and districts with highly competitive races. 

The most outrageous attack ads get the most attention. Not only from TV and radio audiences but, more importantly, from the news media that report on negative spots and in the process show or describe them. Thus, paid media in form of vicious attack advertising translate into free media that may actually reach far larger audiences and receive much more attention than the original campaign ad. No wonder that negative campaign ads are no longer the exception but the norm. 

The requirement to have candidates and organizations, such as the parties’ national committees, approve their own campaign’s advertisement was thought to do away with the nastiest attack ads. But this was a wrong assumption. Just take a look at the vicious attack ads in the close “battle” between Senator Robert Menendez and his challenger Thomas Kean as part of an overall ugly “air war” in this year’s campaigns.

Isn’t there a better way? Americans who reject the nasty "air war" believe so. Comparable democracies manage their far shorter campaigns without spending comparable sums of (public) money, they receive free broadcast time for campaign ads that are far removed from the harsh nasty spots of our present campaigns. But since in this country unlimited spending of private funds has been ruled to represent free speech, there is no hope for taking the huge amount of money out of campaigns and politics—and with it the ugly face of campaign advertising.

Comments

[Johnny]

thanks for the article. It was very ineresting for me.
http://www.rapidsharemix.com