“Attack”: Assault; Harass; to show aggression; to use violence; Cruel; Malicious; Vindictive. These are all synonyms of the word “attack.” These words are not words that most people probably like. Most people probably think that these words are hateful words, mean actions and immoral acts. These words in no way resemble kind, loving, caring, soft, and considerate acts. So why are most people affected then by attack ads in persuading them one way or the other?? Why do politicians use them? They use them because attack ads work.
Attack ads attack a candidate and/or their policy positions. The ad may or may not contain relevant policy information. According to Hollihan, voters claim not to like attack ads but election results suggest that they work. Negative political advertising has become increasing common in the United States (Hollihan, 155). The “Daisy” advertisement from the Johnson campaign is a prime example of how affective these ads can be. A little girl is counting from 1 to 10, pulling petals off of a daisy. Once she approaches 10, a man is counting and a bomb goes off as the camera zooms into her eyes. This ad provoked fear into viewers. It used an innocent little girl who has no control in the advertisement in order to create a sense of worth and to represent hope in the future of America (Lecture, 29 September). Not only was this ad effective because it scared people but it got a lot of news coverage on top of that. It was controversial so people and the media wanted to talk about it. If it did not affect people the first time they saw it, maybe it did after the news dissected it day after day and replayed it day after day. The news at times focuses on the negative because those are things that people remember most often. If you were to watch the news, and they showed one story which a fire fighter rescued a kitten from a tree, then next they showed a clip of a bomb going off in a building and killing hundreds of innocent people, you are most likely to be in shock from the bomb clip and remember that instead of the kitten being rescued. This just goes to show that being dramatic and using attacking ads can be powerful enough to stick in the minds of viewers.
The Democratic National Committee released an attack ad against John McCain in 2008 about his comments in Iraq. They used a voiceover to say, “President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years...” Then it shows an extremely unflattering image of McCain, hunched over with a microphone in hand, “Maybe a hundred. Make it a hundred.” The advertisement shows this clip of McCain in order to compare him to President George Bush but saying that McCain is worse. It then shows “war images” with words over it: “Five years, 500 Billion dollars, over 4,000 dead.” Back to the same image of McCain, “100 years. That’s fine.” It then shows a picture of President George W. Bush with his arm over McCain with the saying underneath it, “Is John McCain the right choice for America’s future?” See the advertisement at: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/politicalads/609/
This ad uses the same approach as the “daisy” advertisement. It is an attack ad, using no policy information, just replaying McCain saying “100 years. That is fine with me.” It uses imagery that evokes fear like bombs, explosions, fire, and burning cars. It compared 100 years to 5 years in forms of money and death. It challenged viewers to think ethically about war and McCain’s approach on war and what was best for America’s future. The unfortunate thing about attack ads is that they may not be completely true. The media can bend any sort of truth into whatever it wants to make a person, candidate or party look like even if it is something completely different from actuality.
When analyzing an ad such as this one, I found myself questioning if McCain was even talking about war. I know he is in favor of war being a veteran himself but is he actually referring to war in this clip? He could have been talking about how old people thought he was. “100 years. That’s fine with me.” Maybe saying if he is considered that old, he is wiser than other candidates. We do not accurately know because we are not given the full picture just from his eleven words. But this ad would be affective. Most people do not want to spend 500 billion dollars on war or condone over 4,000 deaths every five years. It makes them think but is it accurate? We, the audience, may never really know with these types of advertisements. Unlike commercials in television for different products, political commercials are not regulated in the accuracy or truthfulness in their depictions of candidates (157). In knowing that, we could be being fed inaccurate information from these attack ads and unless we do further research, we may never be able to differentiate between what is real and what is not.
Another ad on the same website, WashingtonPost.com, I came across another attack ad against Senator John McCain. (Most of the attack ads against Obama were “no longer available” but I am aware they are two sided.) It is about nuclear waste dumping in Yucca Mountain. It starts off saying “Nuclear Waste to Nevada” and then shows trucks traveling on a highway. It then says, “McCain supports opening Yucca” with his face and nuclear waste signs on the bottom of the screen. Next to a “Welcome to Nevada” sign is a large image of John McCain’s head and “John McCain… not worried about nuclear waste in Nevada.” The ad then shows an interview clip of McCain saying that “no, no I would not” want nuclear waste coming through Phoenix, Arizona on its way to Yucca Mountain. The ad then turns red on the image of John McCain. “John McCain for Nuclear Waste in Nevada” with nuclear waste bins and images on the screen then switching over to scenery images in Arizona, “John McCain against Nuclear Waste in Arizona.” Obama is then shown delivering a speech on opposing opening Yucca Mountain. Then he is shown talking with older men and women and spending time with families. The screen says “Obama Protecting Nevada Families.” See the full advertisement at: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/politicalads/711/
This ad used McCain to show that he would not want the waste traveling by his home, his family and his backyard but he does not care about the people in Nevada. The use of imagery is effective as well. Red tinting on the screen after he says, “No I would not [want the nuclear waste traveling through Phoenix, Arizona].” Displaying nuclear waste images and signs and associating his face with those signs and then Obama’s with the people is a powerful message in itself. The crafting of these ads is ingenious. There is a direct comparison between candidates on a political issue but it is attacking the position of McCain, which is why it is classified as an attack advertisement.
Negative advertising are believed to be more attention grabbing and more likely to stick in the audience’s mind, more so than positive advertising (Devlin, 1995; Perloff & Kinsey, 1992; Hollihan, 155). Even if the advertisement does not persuade a voter one way or another with the imagery, it may leave a bitter taste for the voter in that one particular candidate would use such approach that they turn against the supporter of the attack ad (157). By using independent sponsors, such as the DNC for the “100 years” ad, it permits candidates to attack their opponents without damaging their own reputation thus creating distance between the candidate and the ads (158).
Attack ads are effective in grabbing the attention of voters, swaying them one way or the other and in challenging them to think ethically about their voting decision. Attack ads are vindictive, malicious, violent, and harmful to others. But does that really matter anymore?? They work, and America falls for it so how can we expect them to stop?
Works Cited
Hollihan, Thomas A. Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age, 2 edition. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2009.
Anderson, Karrin. Lecture. “Political Advertising.” Colorado State University. 29 September 2009.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Emily,
ReplyDeleteYour blog on the effect of attack ads on campaigns paints a cruel but truthful picture. Our society is so caught up in “shock value” that we tend to tune in to programs that arouse us, rather than ones that are uneventful and affect very few. Because of this, information outlets, unfortunately, predominately air or publish stories that will attract the biggest audience. In political campaigns, as you pointed out, attack ads are meant to be stuck in the head of viewers and are products of strategic planning. These attack ads, although malicious at times, are effective and lead people to ask questions. Although attacks ads are portrayed as a negative part of political campaigning, they mimic our society with our addiction to shock appeal. The Daisy example demonstrates this perfectly. It may not be much or say much, but the effect and message is clearly transmitted to the audience, leaving them with some sort of opinion or emotion towards the subject. Attack ads, for better or for worse, are here to stay and will continue to strongly appeal to viewers emotions. This was a well written blog that flowed very well and provided useful links to relevant examples.