Political Attack Ads and the 2012 Presidential Race
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-02-20/political-attack-ads-and-2012-presidential-race
Mudslinging has been a part of political campaigns for as long as anyone can remember. But the U.S. Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited amounts of money to be given to super PACs thrust mudslinging into overdrive. Super PACs have already spent nearly $60 million on the 2012 presidential race. And most of that money has gone into negative advertising. This was underscored in last month's Florida primary. In the final weeks, 92 percent of campaign commercials were negative. Diane and her guests will talk about attack ads in the presidential race and whether they're harming the political process.
Guests
Jane Mayer
staff writer, "The New Yorker," author of "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals."
Vin Weber
Republican consultant, former member of Congress representing Minnesota's 2nd district (1981-93).
Kathleen Hall Jamieson
director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania; among other books, she's co-author of "The Obama Victory: How Media, Money and Message Shaped the 2008 Election."
Program Highlights
Negative ads in political campaigns have been credited with turning a race. Many blame the notorious Willy Horton ad in part for causing Michael Dukakis to lose his bid for president in 1988. But today, the millions of dollars flooding into campaign superPACs have changed the game - many believe for the worse.
Turning Point
The 1964 ad supporting President Lyndon Johnson for president that showed a young girl, a countdown, and a mushroom cloud - the so-called "daisy" ad - was a sort of turning point for negative campaign tactics, said Jamieson. What made the daisy ad different was that its impact was
achieved largely through magnification; that is, other media outlets decided to cover the ad itself, magnifying its influence. Some of the superPAC ads from the current campaign cycle are also gaining extra airtime on cable, similarly magnifying their impact, Jamieson said.
Not Just About The Money
The nature of attack ads can be just as important as the amount of money that goes into producing them. This election cycle has seen very serious character attacks, Jamieson said. The rise of superPACS has also taken a lot of the accountability out of the process of producing negative ads, Weber said.
The Media's Role
Some media outlets like FactCheck.org aim to assess the content of political ads for truthfulness and call out those that are blatant lies, but Weber emphasized again that the media "plays both of the fence" when it comes to negative ads because attack ads make for interesting content. "Back in 2004, the infamous Swift boat ad that hurt Senator Carrie was only aired to 1 percent of the population and yet 80 percent of the people thought they saw it by the end of the campaign. Why? 'Cause the news media gave it massive coverage," Weber said.
What The Ads Are NOT About
Mayer pointed out that the most negative ads are not about policy decisions, but rather about cultural issues. Weber said that the campaigns themselves have talked about serious issues, even if the discussions are not reflected in the ads. "There's no absence of information out there about where the candidates stand on a whole range of issues," Weber said.
You can read the full transcript here.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
"Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, left, accompanied by Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 1, 2012, to discuss the disclosure of super PAC donors to the Republican presidential candidates".
I am sure these fine gentleman are only interested in enlightening everyone to the horrors of "citizens united" without even a hint of partisan spin, their cool like that! The fountain of truth known as "the one" is now forced to initiate his own "dangerous to democracy" super pacs in response. Just maybe the average dolt might have to do some thinking this time before they cast their vote.
You really got to wonder who would want to run for president to represent a people that are too dumb to understand whats good for them. Talk of making spending cuts to maintain any level of sustainability gets your head kicked in. Notions of personal responsibility from times gone by by holding an aspirin between your knees is looked at as jaw dropping insensitivity, the much needed common sense in the message is ridiculed as out of touch and insulting. The question is not how far we have come but rather how far we have fallen.
Air time will be at a premium. We`ve been smothered with filthy ads for months. These groups aren`t supposed to conspire,but different groups are holding down the same time slots. Yesterday,the ads on the Sunday Talk Shows, were all Big Oil all the time. They promise $5.00 a gallon gas,and we get to pay for the TV time,while they promote their Corporate welfare.
Gas sales are flat.Where is supply and demand? Why is refined oil products our nation`s # 1 export ?
I`m sick of corporate whining already 1
If we simply take our televisions to the recycle center, we eliminate most of the noise. The medium of television makes thought difficult. The production design of commercial TV redoubles that difficulty. In other words, when we watch TV to get genuine information that's in our interest, both the medium and the producers of content work to block cognitive thought while stimulating the emotional portions of our brains.
Patsy Nomore wrote:
"Gas sales are flat.Where is supply and demand? Why is refined oil products our nation`s # 1 export ?"
The united states is not the center of the gas buying universe, supply and demand is a global phenomenon. It would be far more productive if you focused your frustrations on the currency devaluation schemes coming from the federal government.
I wasn't going to comment, but I heard Diane's intro on this where she said "Politicians have been slinging mud" since the early days of the country, but that with the advent of Super PACs, negative advertising "is at an all time high."
Now, the Super PAC system is certainly in need of reform. But, for those who think we're "more negative than ever," please consider the below advertisement from one of Andrew Jackson's opponents in the 1800s.
“General Jackson’s mother was a common prostitute, brought to this country by the British soldiers! She afterward married a mulatto man, with whom she had several children, of which number General Jackson is one!”
Super PACs present all kinds of issues of transparency, but let's please not pretend American politics were ever civil.
There has never been a point in human history where ignoring the problem has solved anything. You know that people who spend money on the tech are not going to do what you suggest, nor should they need to in order to live a quiet life. This is not Orwell's 1984, the device does have an off button and we do have a legal structure that can aid in the pairing down of dirt being flung about. I for one, will happily keep my television and fight for what I believe to be the appropriate amount of mud that lands upon it.
Agreed! Television has made us stupid - with precious few exceptions.
What would happen if a politician ran ads void of negative aspirations towards his or her opponents?
What if these ads simply spoke in reasoned tones and treated the electorate as both worthy and capable?
Has it ever been done before - or do all politicians fall for the mantra that negative advertising works?
Citizens United is like giving the arsonist such a loud megaphone that nobody can hear everybody in the theater yelling "Fire!"
Some of us lived through the 13 Days of October and can remember the fear of a nuclear holocaust. The choices President Kennedy HAD to make were not just political fodder.Kennedy had critics who wanted a nuclear war.Just like today,the call to war with Iran. Can a President get the desired results without constant perpetual war?
Who said: "Treat me like a citizen -- not a consumer." Negative ads work! We love the Presidential Horse Race Politics. The Winner and the loser of the Big November Smack Down... . And recently Congress removed the "Presidential Funding Check Off Box" from the IRS filing forms. Plutocracy -- the best gov't money can buy! This is American Exceptionalism at its best?
To this day the Swift Boat Vets for Truth maintain that they are entitled to their opinion... . all they need is financier to bank roll the attack ads... .
The final responsibilty for airing attack ad remains with the media outlet which broadcast them.
Therefore, the power remains in their collective hands to run or not run an attack if they do not have sufficient information to identity the author and the financial backer of those ads.
Would seem to me if the media outlet if not satisifed with the information they receive they can turn the ad(s) down.
As always, in the media it comes down to easy money for them and they don't ask and don't expect the other party to tell.
All the worse for our political system !
I am appalled by the American public who overnight can change votes based on a 15 –30 second ad. The adverisers are taking advantage of our political ignorance, and our ignorance is causing poor choices to be made.
Wh
Every high school student must present a cited paper for each class to authenticate the veracity of their paper. Why should political ads that purport to include "facts" not have to cite where those statements or quotations come from? For the hundreds of millions of dollars the networks receive, certainly they could devote a few interns to checking these out. Might not get them all, but would certainly put pressure on those presenting the ads to become factually correct. Dr. Fred Hansen
i wrote to our local paper about a partisan hack that writes an attack "letter to the editor" on the opinion page of the HDR which they run about one a week.
(Bet the attack writer is get his talking points from some "Think Tank"). The editors response was that the writers distortions were his opinions and it was published as a way to open dialogue... . ideas in the free market place... . "freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose...." sang Highwayman Kristofferson
Vin: Not Corrupt???!! How naive!
All these donations and campaign funding in the millions are a quid pro quo arrangement.
It is corrupt by it's very nature.
Message to candidate - I make your election possible, therefore you owe me!
America is religious nation. It was interesting to hear Santorium's comments on Obama's religion. Big gov't is good if it is pushing your idea of morals such as GW Bush & Terry Schivo in Fla, eh?
I would love to see one PAC-paid-for-and-produced negative ad that named the Supreme Court Justices who decided in favor of Citizens United, along with descriptions of their apparent conflicts of interests that should have precluded their participation in that decision. This ad, with liberal exaggeration of the truth, and filled with innuendo, should highlight the association of the Koch Brothers with Justice Thomas's wife, and contain many photos of the luxurious resorts and "retreats" that a number of the conservative justices enjoyed on the expense tab of Citizens United proponents.
After all, if the Court thinks that PACs are just another form of free political speech, they should have no problem with ads leveled against their (and their spouse's) honesty and integrity, and judicial ethics, even if inaccurate.
The Michigan Senate race is starting to see some negative ads.
There is one candidate, however, who is not running negative attack ads. Randy Hekman is running for US Senate in Michigan. This is his internet ad, released today:
http://www.youtube.com/hekmanforsenate
I have a suggestion that might just solve the problem of political attack ads, false political advertising, and the obscene amount of money being spent to bribe (I'm sorry, "support") political candidates. And it's perfectly constitutional.
What do all these things have in common? Television! (To a lesser extent, radio too.)
We already have a "V Chip" that allows us, the viewers, to screen out content we find objectionable. Let's demand the creation of a "P Chip" that will allow us to do the same to political advertising. Those who like "wading in the mud" can leave the P Chip turned off, and enjoy all the "benefits" of negative campaigning. Those of us who don't will turn it on, and our screens will automatically go blank, our sound will automatically go off, whenever one of those ads (or even clips on news shows) are being played.
If people aren't watching them whose going to pay billions to produce and air them? And if campaigns no longer need those billions, why bother "donating" them? If this works, we'll have killed many birds with just one stone.
Of course, getting this through Congress (the body that will have to change the V Chip laws to include a P Chip) will be hard (some might say next to impossible), but I think this is an idea all sides (left, right, and center) can get behind.
Let's get this done!
The problem lies in the fact that very few individuals are analytical. Politics on the whole, in all democratic societies focus on the art of telling the people what they want to hear in order to associate good feelings with one candidate and/or fear with an opposing candidate. It's a stunted form of the cult of personality.
The real problem with the United States lies in it's overall malfunction with its business sector. Like the industrial sector the corporate leadership of the press have come to focus on wealth extraction from the enterprise instead of wealth generation with minimal extraction. This has set up a dynamic in almost all news entities such that they must pander to the lowest common denominator of the viewpoint that they pander to in order to maximize viewership.
It's flawed to think that censorship of the political stupidity that currently runs the political discussion in the US is going to turn off stupidity. When leadership leads the people to a canned message, or away from a canned message with another canned message, they do a disservice to leading the populace to become more analytical and less emotional. The way leadership leads people to become analytical is to be analytical with their public platform. To do otherwise is to confuse fighting dogma with counter dogma with teaching people how to determine the difference between dogma and fact let alone overcoming your emotional stance from your best interests. No society has reached even a compromise of this, however the US is becoming more dysfunctional with time.
Enjoyed your show as always! A point that was not noted is that with Citizens United, the Supreme Court changed the USA from a Democracy to an Oligarchy. In Thuycides, the History of the Pelopennesian War, in the 17th year of the War, 415 to 414 BC. Athenagoras, the democratic Political Leader in Syracuse on the island of Sicily, in just two pages covers the entire modus operandi of the Right Wing: the transparent use of Fear to gain control, the use of fabricated stories to intimidate everyone, and lastly a jewel for the ages: "An oligarchy, though, gives the people their full share of danger, while hogging the benefits and depriving others to establish its own monopoly of advantage." Copyright, Martin Hammond 2009, Oxford University Press.
Is nobody bothered by the idea that the most reasonable voice on the issue of unlimited campaign contributions is Stephen Colbert? The way he has illustrated the cozyness between the candidates and their associated PACs is so simple and informative that even the Supreme Court should be able to understand it. Simply put, corporations are not people, money is not speech and my vote is being devalued every day.
well put
Clip and save. Repost whenever some Teabagger/Foxbot posts anything about Obama being a "socialist."
http://www.alternet.org/story/154175/why_obama%27s_the_least_socialistic...
Why Obama's the Least Socialistic President in Modern History (And That's a Shame)
You did it again: Ms. Jamison was going to add something important, Ms. Rehm said: "after the break", but, after the break, nothing more from Ms. Jamison. Breaks are a nuisance, but it's even worse when they are used to censor a contribution.
Michael S. Cullen, Berlin, Germany