Political
Advertising Is A Poor Way To Inform Voters
Pete Radosevich
The Pine Journal
I find it difficult to believe some people who
plan to vote in the fall elections are undecided. Polls indicate that
about 10 percent of likely voters are undecided. Sure, it’s easy
to tell a pollster that you are undecided, but that doesn’t mean
you are undecided. Most ‘undecided’ voters probably just
aren’t comfortable telling a stranger who they plan to vote for.
Of course, we won’t find out if the polls are correct until election
day, so the candidates will have another couple of months left to “advertise”… oops,
I mean, to “campaign.”
Since the election season started
this year, John Kerry has spent about $80 million in advertising,
and George Bush has spent about $120 million. Outside groups (527s,
which became popular this year after campaign reform laws took away
the so-called ‘soft
money’ we saw in the last major election) have spent
another $70 million, mostly in key states like Minnesota. That’s over a
quarter billion dollars spent on advertising.
I’m a little concerned that
America will pick its next leaders largely based on television marketing, as
if our government is just another product on the supermarket shelves that can
be sold to consumers by the flashiest ads. Candidates know that advertising works;
that’s why they do it. But it’s a poor
way to inform the voters about the issues. Debates are much more informative.
However, although hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent on advertising,
Bush and Kerry plan to debate face-to-face only three times during this campaign.
I don’t like political advertising. With advertising, it’s much easier
to engage in dirty tricks. For example, there is a ‘527’ group that
ran an ad falsely attacking John Kerry’s war record. Although the ad only
ran a few times, the resulting media frenzy has kept the issue on the front burner
for weeks now. (So much for a ‘liberal media bias’.) The ads contain
allegations by a mean-spirited enemy of John Kerry with a grudge – he is
upset at Kerry for his anti-war stance in the early ‘70s. This person’s
allegations have been discredited by the people who were actually with John Kerry
during the events in Vietnam. So why won’t George Bush denounce the ad?
Because the ad and the resulting media frenzy are good for George Bush. It’s
a classic campaign dirty trick – turn the focus off your own dismal record
by attacking the good record of someone else. That way, the Kerry camp is forced
into being defensive (actually, John Kerry has raised himself above the attacks
by simply stating that his military record stands for itself). Few people bring
up the obvious question: How dare George Bush attack John Kerry’s military
service, when George Bush himself used his father’s connections to get
out of serving? The ads, like a nasty rumor, take on a life of their own.
You’ve
probably heard the phrase, “I approved this message” on
both candidates’ television ads. Larry Holmes, a regular panelist with
me on “Harry’s Gang,” noticed that if it’s a negative
attack ad, the candidate will give his approval at the beginning of the ad. But
for a positive ad, the candidate will say “I approved this message” at
the end. That’s a calculated marketing trick. Have you noticed that the
candidates’ attack ads use specific, out-of-context statistics; but an
ad that touts his own abilities generally uses very vague terms? Both candidates
do this. Campaign advertising is a huge problem in these elections.
If I could
fix the problem, I would ban most television advertising. I would encourage
the candidates to debate, face to face, as often as possible. Then,
the candidates would only be allowed to use footage from the debates
in their advertising. Each candidate could use any footage they want,
as long as it was filmed during the debates. They would also be allowed
to run as many television ads as they could afford – it just has to be footage from the debates.
This idea would only cover advertising – the candidates would be allowed
to use traditional campaign tactics like whistlestop tours and rallies, and the
media could cover campaign events if they choose.
