Negative Ads have become Political Dialog

Just when people thought politics couldn't get much worse, the 2012 presidential election managed to pump $6 billion dollars worth of negative ads across television, radio, print and the Internet. Some estimates claim that more than 80% of all political ads this year were negative nature. Worse than this though, the downward spiral of political discourse is taking the rest of the media with it - tarnishing the image and credibility of everyone involved.

If you don't have anything nice to say...

Perhaps it is to be expected that with the dual influences of the campaign spending explosion triggered by the Supreme Court "Citizen's United" Campaign Finance decision and the still sluggish economy that the election advertisements would be overwhelmingly negative. Even with those rationalizations though, it was still hard to watch. One wonders if any election these days can elevate itself beyond the level of mutual character assassination. Even more to the point though is whether any meaningful political dialog can occur in these types of environments.

Does this seem silly, well, don't the other negative ads seem goofy as well?

First we need to make a distinction regarding negative ads and let's say attack ads. Perhaps such a distinction is not formally recognized but for the sake of argument let's contrast these two types of combative ads:

1. The Traditional Negative Ad - It is first and foremost a personal assault. The personality of the candidate is under fire; the types of charges leveled can include ideology but the main thrust of the strategy is to tarnish the character of the candidate. These ads are part of the main dialog between the candidates - in fact this year - nearly all of the dialog has been negative.
2. The Proxy Attack - The proxy attack is something that's been around for a long while but has now taken on new dimensions given the virtually unlimited influx of cash and special interests participation. The proxy attack allows a much wider variety of attacks and all sorts of related propaganda. Since these ads are not officially linked to the campaigns there is little or no restraint or responsibility shown. 

Both types of ads have been around since political advertising began. The problem of course is not the existence of these types of ads but rather our increasing reliance on them to convey the majority of our national political dialog (at least during election cycles). Neither of these types of ads is concerned with or does a good job of actually establishing a dialog. The Voters have a right to know what the differences are between those who would represent them.

Ads like this are quite simply embarrassing the nation...

What seems clear is that the Negative Ad is gaining momentum and is becoming the primary form of all political advertising and perhaps the primary form of all political dialog. Positive advertising is relatively rare as candidates seem hesitant t talk about what if anything they intend to do if elected. So, why do politicians seem to be moving en masse to the least civilized of the available options? Well - they think Negative Ads (personal assaults) work. Do they, really?

It's hard to quantify that answer given that other factors are usually involved. Someone who outspends their opponent 3 to 1 and uses negative advertising and wins could point to the money, the ads or both as the keys to victory. What does seem clear is that negative advertising turns people off - first towards the candidate being targeted, next towards the candidate making the attack and lastly towards the entire unpleasant process. Eventually these people become turned off altogether and stop voting or participating in politics at all. And that in itself may be a victory for someone.

This parody managed to capture most of this campaigns core themes - that kinda of scary...

Copyright 2012 - Raving Reviews - All Rights Reserved

Read More

Election Night Highlights - 2012

Last night, for the first time perhaps since the 2000 election, we watched the election coverage from about 6 until 2:00 in the morning. We decided to watch because we were thinking the race might be very close and potentially have some historic twists and turns. Also, since we're from Ohio, we just thought it was cool that we get to pick the Presidents - we used to elect Presidents from Ohio, now we just pick them - whatever - it's still cool. This ability to pick winners has not extended our to sports franchises leaving us stuck with the Bengals, Indians, Browns and Reds (and Ohio State doesn't count cause it's a college) - so lucky in politics and unlucky in sports?

Anyway the big controversies that we thought might happen didn't materialize; that's probably a good thing. So instead we focused our attentions on the coverage of the election itself and watched most of the major networks over the course of the evening. We thought we'd share our more memorable observations with you...

The More Memorable Moments of Election Night 2012:

• On CNN - Anderson Cooper seemed to be the ringleader for the coverage but it was highly confused and despite the many walls full of graphics it was just awkward as the cameras followed him from one part of the set to the other. It seemed often as though he was lost or that he or the cameraman were going to trip over something.  Next time just sit down, ok, all that pacing around made us nervous. We did like the way Wolf presented the projections - it was better than Dancing with The Stars.

Which camera I am supposed to look at?

• On PBS - It really seemed as though Gov. Romney had already taken Big Bird down a notch and defunded the network. We were treated to a desk and two chairs and a handful of commentators who seemed determined to be duller or more confused than Jim Lehrer was during the first Presidential Debate. PBS - if you've still got money go out and hire some new blood.

B. Bird was our write-in candidate of choice yesterday...

• On MSNBC - Rachel Maddow was is rare form and outperformed every other anchor on every other network. Olbermann, Olbermann, who? Rachel has taken control of the MSNBC political line up.

• Also on MSNBC - Ok, Rev. Al Sharpton seems like a nice enough guy but he's becoming the Tom Brokaw of MSNBC - he's a bit hard to follow and he looked a lot better before the diet (take a lesson from Gov. Christie and go carb out will you). Why not invite Jess Jackson ?

PBS: "Let's be careful not to scratch this table, they're repossessing it tomorrow..."

• On NBC - Chuck Todd, who usually does a great job seemed obsessed with his Microsoft Windows 8 touchscreens and Florida. How many times do you have to tell us there are lots of Puerto Ricans living in Orlando before we get it - we got it already. (and BTW we have traveled to Orlando a lot and actually know Puerto Ricans so it wasn't a big surprise).

• On CBS - Bob Schieffer was flinging colorful metaphors fast and furious all to the effect he didn't have a clue what was going on. Well, that was clear from the way he handled the third Presidential debate. CBS, it's time to find some new blood. Where's Cronkite when you need him?

• All Networks - The collective quote "It's all about Ohio" was done to death last night. Besides we knew that already. It's always about us, right?

• All Networks - Very few interviews with actual voters. Strange. We've all become statistics; exit polls and returns and electoral votes - heck these numbers seem to be running everything - what do they need us for?  

• ABC News - When we tuned in after watching all the info-graphics for hours the set of the ABC team almost blinded us - hey guys ever hear of contrast or brightness settings? It looked a little bit like Jeff Bridge's condo in Tron Legacy.

• Romney Concession Speech - The first 5 minutes were great - spot on. But, he must have thought he was in a debate and kept going. This guy needs some kind of internal stopwatch.

• Obama Victory Speech - The President managed to take a remarkable event and suspenseful evening and make it absolutely boring. This is a relatively new skill for the President that he has been honing over the last two years and seemed to have perfected during this year's general election.

• Biggest Freak Out of the Night - It was a tie between MSNBC and Fox News in reaction to all the networks calling Ohio and the election for Obama (remember how we told you it was all about us - huh uh). Anyway, the MSNBC crew were jumping all over Romney for being unable to accept reality and Fox was preparing the next Revolution. Please calm down guys - it's better for your health, really. It was a close race and it's no surprise there would be questions about Ohio given how close it was. Few people were expecting the race to be called that early and each campaign would have probably reacted the same way. And you would have been hesitant to throw in the towel too if you had wasted two 2 billion dollars and gotten absolutely nothing to show for it - ouch! There's no second place prize in politics...

Aren't we special ! - the candidates couldn't get enough of us here in the Buckeye State - all them pasing through Ohio up until the last minutes of the election

• Best Conspiracy Theory for the Evening - Microsoft and Windows 8 picked all the winners as the diabolical new operating system came one step closer to declaring judgement day.

All in all, things went well last night and we in America (including Ohio :) have maintained our Democracy. Over the coming weeks we hope to regain our collective sanity as the Tsunami of negative ads of 2012 became a distant, unpleasant memory (at least until next time).

Copyright 2012 - Raving Reviews - All Rights Reserved

Read More

The 2012 Guide to Negative Political Ads

The presidential election season is upon us and we'd like to dedicate an article to one of the most important foundations of Democracy - The Negative Political Advertisement. Negative Ads have been with us since the beginning and provide voters with exactly as much information as they need to know - in short they represent both our heritage and the primary mechanism for conveying political knowledge. But there is a problem - Negative Ads aren't always done properly and when that happens, chaos follows.

Negative Ads are as American as Ground Beef

We'd like to take a few moments and provide a guide for producing more effective political ads - we'll start with the basics... The Negative Political Ad typically consists of the following elements:

1. An illogical argument.
2. An unsupported personal attack on your opponent.
3. Disturbing imagery or music or both (both is preferred).
4. An emotional plea targeted at unrelated issues so as to somewhat distract the true intent or agenda of the sponsor of the Ad.
5. A good catchphrase or slogan that people can remember.

Now, we must ask ourselves, why do these ads work so well?

• Because politics is supposed to be easy - so making it easy makes people happy.
• Because it is easier to get mad at something than to support something.
• Because politics is entertainment and people love to be entertained - the more sensational - the better.
• Because ad space and attention spans are short.
  
• Because no one running for office wants you to know what they really support or who they might work for - so focusing on the opponent is rather helpful.
  

Let's look at an example TV ad and rate it based the core guidelines listed above.

A Typical Negative Ad

Point 1 - The argument is not logical, good - in this case there doesn't even seem to be one.
Point 2 - It is an unsupported personal attack.
Point 3 - Lot's of disturbing imagery, sound effects. The cadaver model is especially effective.
Point 4 - It's emotional and unrelated to running for Congress - good.
Point 5 - Good catchphrase "He just can't be trusted."

Overall rating = A-

But of course that ad was pretty timid in some respects. We feel that the best negative ads are those which go to extremes. Check out the following video which recreates some historically profound dirty ad campaigns:

Who said the Founding Father's were nice guys?

We have left out an important element though that is often critical in developing exceptional negative ads - creative use of farm animals. There are few technique as effective as using pigs, sheep and monkeys when developing your political ad. For example, if you can't find a wretched photo of your opponent - substitute it with an orangutan. Check out of the following example of the farm animal technique in action.

Don't be messing with these silent lambs...

Last but least, there are times when negative ads can be mixed with a positive political message - while we don't recommend this it sometimes works - check out the following example.

If only more politicians would admit they are monsters...

Just remember - if someone can't explain to you in 30 seconds why his opponent is a jerk, he has no business holding office.


Copyright 2011, Raving Reviews™

Read More