|
|
Monday, October 20, 2008
Going Negative Not a
Positive Way to Get Votes
by
Walter Brasch
 |
|
Walter Brasch is professor
of journalism at Bloomsburg University and president of the
Pennsylvania Press Club. He is the author of the critically-acclaimed
‘Unacceptable’: The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina (January
2006) and Sinking the Ship of State: The Presidency of George W. Bush
(November 2007), both available through amazon.com, borders.com, and
other bookstores.
You may contact Brasch at
brasch@bloomu.edu
or through his website at:
www.walterbrasch.com.
|
|
During the final debate last week,
Barack Obama called John McCain on the negative ads, saying that 100
percent of his radio and TV ads were negative. Not true, replied
McCain. True, according to the Advertising Project at the University
of Wisconsin. Almost every ad in a one-week period before the debate
was negative.
The nonpartisan analysts determined that
between June 4 and October 4, "47 percent of the McCain spots were
negative (completely focused on Obama), 26 percent were positive
(completely focusing on his own personal story or on his issues or
proposals) and 27 percent were contrast ads (a mix of positive and
negative messages)." The Project also noted that only about 35
percent of Obama’s ads are negative, about 39 percent are positive,
and about 25 percent are contrast ads.
However, McCain’s campaign also rightly
points out that Obama has spent far more on negative ads than has
McCain. That’s because Obama has bought far more TV ad time than
McCain. The Campaign Media Analysis Group, an independent research
company, reports Obama during the final weeks of the campaign is
outspending McCain by four to one. By the election, Obama will have
spent more than $200 million in the three months after the Democratic
convention.
An Ipsos public affairs poll released a
few days after the final debate reveals that 57 percent of voters said
the negative ads aren’t effective. Unless a candidate has a strong
positive message outlining what he or she believes and is willing to
push if elected, negative ads may also have a backlash effect as
voters see only the dirt being thrown.
Senators Norman Coleman (R-Minn.) and
Susan Collins (R-Maine) are among leading Republicans who have
attacked the McCain attack ads. "They don't serve John McCain well,"
said Collins, co-chair of McCain’s Maine campaign. She said the ads,
especially an automated telephone "robocall" that ties Obama to
radicals, "does not reflect the kind of leader that he [McCain] is."
McCain’s negative ad campaign was also one of the reasons why Colin
Powell--chairman of the joint chiefs of staff under George H.W. Bush,
secretary of state under George W. Bush--crossed party lines three
weeks before the election to endorse Obama.
Another negative arises with the use of
negative ads. With voters being bombarded with radio, TV, Internet,
and direct mail ads, the effect isn't so much an additive effect--the
more ads, the better the possibility of retention--but a subtractive
effect--voters aren’t even paying attention. If they do, it's solely
to names, with name recognition often overriding political issues.
Thus, if a negative TV ad mentions an opponent twice as many times,
the voter comprehends the name, not the message; the brain may be
subconsciously processing names, as it does when confronted by
thousands of lawn signs and billboards, with the most mentions leading
to a vote.
Whatever else the McCain campaign does
in the next three weeks, there is one reality--the overwhelming
placement of negative ads on TV reveals a campaign that not only is
desperate for votes but also sliding even further from election.
[Dr.
Brasch, an award-winning syndicated columnist, is professor of
journalism at Bloomsburg University and president of the Pennsylvania
Press Club. His latest book is Sinking the Ship of State: The
Presidency of George W. Bush (November 2007), available through amazon.com and other bookstores. You may contact Brasch at
brasch@bloomu.edu or through his website at:
www.walterbrasch.com.]
|
