[ad_1]
Attack ads are a common tactic used by politicians during campaigns to discredit their opponents. These ads must be carefully crafted to avoid slander charges, but do not need to be fair or balanced. While some voters may be turned off by negative campaigning, attack ads can be highly effective in swaying public opinion. They can also force opponents to address damaging issues publicly, and sometimes even become the starting point for a positive new campaign. However, candidates must be careful not to cross a moral or ethical line that could harm their own perception among voters.
During a political campaign, a candidate essentially has two equally persuasive paths to take. One is a positive campaign that glorifies the candidate’s own experience, personal integrity, or future goals. The other is a negative campaign that emphasizes your opponent’s lack of experience, questionable personal integrity, or dubious future goals. To persuade voters not to vote for an opponent, many politicians use particularly negative commercials known as attack ads.
Attack ads need to be made very carefully to avoid libelous slander charges, which means they should only feature facts that are in the public domain. However, attack ads are not required to give a fair or balanced representation of those facts. The point of an attack ad is to present the opponent in an unflattering or self-righteous light, especially when the issue is very important to potential voters. Ads attacking Democratic President Michael Dukakis in 1988, for example, portrayed him as soft on crime after a violent criminal who had ordered his release as governor, a man named Willie Horton, committed another murder. Dukakis never fully recovered from the negative effects of these attack announcements, even though he had a rationale for his previous actions as governor.
Some voters may be turned off by the excessive use of attack ads, as this negative campaigning style is often brutal, though effective. When 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry used his military experience as a fast boat captain in Vietnam as a campaign positive, a series of attacking ads appeared questioning his honesty, the nature of his wounds and his ability to command others. These attack announcements featured veterans who had served with Kerry in the fast boats and believed that Kerry’s accounts of the events were not entirely truthful. Attack announcements of this nature may seem petty to a segment of voters, but they are highly memorable and effective when presented at a critical moment before a general election.
Attack ads essentially force a candidate’s opponent to address damaging issues in a public way. Sometimes the target of an attack ad will respond the same way with their own attack ad, or find a way to turn a negative into a positive. Some attack ads actually become the starting point for a positive new campaign addressing such allegations. The fact that an opponent can turn a poorly supported attack ad into a positive rebuttal is usually enough incentive for a candidate to use attack ads sparingly and also avoid crossing a moral or ethical line that could harm perceptions of the attacker. candidate among the voters.
[ad_2]