Negative campaign ads

I heard an interesting comment on negative campaign ads that made me think of them in a different light.

Now, let me preface this with a comment about how peeved I was this last election cycle with the whole thing about Obama's lies about using public funding. To me, he didn't win the White House, he bought it. It just sickens me that this aspect of his character (that of him being a blatant liar) was not a focal point of mainstream media press coverage and that instead they went with junk about Palin that ended up being lies...of course, they "retracted" those lies after the election...

Reports were swirling about anonymous campaign aides' claims that during debate preparations, Palin didn't know Africa was a continent, or which countries comprised NAFTA. Palin lashed out against the media for reporting the story:

"Those guys are jerks, if they came away with it taking things out of context and then tried to spread something on national news. It is not fair and not right."

Turns out, Palin is right on that score. As the New York Times reports, the whole story was part of an elaborate hoax, and the networks that reported the misinformation have retracted it. (11/13/08)

ANYWAY...about negative campaign ads...

While I really am not a big fan of those kind of ads, what I heard on a show last night made me think of them a little differently. It was explained with the following example...or something like this...

Scenario #1. Consider you get two flyers in the mail. Each flyer advertises a different restaurant. Both flyers present their respective restaurant in a good light. What would you do? Well, you'd probably pick one and say, 'we'll try this one this week and this other one next week'.

Scenario #2. Consider you get two flyers in the mail. Each flyer adverstises a different restaurant. The first flyer presents its restaurant in in a good light. The second flyer also presents its restaurant in a good light, but it also states that the other restaurant had been investigated for health violations recently. Now, what would you do? Well, you'd more than likely only go to the restaurant that didn't have any negative material associate with it.

These scenarios show how negative ads are more than just annoying, they are effective. And since they are effective, they will continue to be a viable aspect of campaigns. Like it or not. OK. So, there you have it. Of course, I'm of the opinion that while negative campaign ads may be effective, and will continue to be used, they do not have to be viscious.

Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to post this...