Stand by Your Ad

“Stand by Your Ad”

Negative Ads are becoming more and more of an issue in today’s society. Candidates are getting farther away from the issues and are more focused on defending themselves or attacking another. We went over in class the reasons for negative advertising and they all have been deemed effective in terms of getting attention and getting something to stick in the audiences memory. But when is enough enough?
In 2002, the campaign Finance Reform Act created the “stand by your ad” law. This law requires candidates of a federal office to take responsibility for all their political ads by showing a full screen picture of themselves and by having a voice over telling the audience that they approved the message being sent out. The hope in this is that any candidate will think twice about creating an attack as on an opponent because they are now personally attached to the ad. FactCheck.org seems to be optimistic about this law, the idea that “anyone slinging mud will have to do it personally, and risk getting splattered by their own missiles” seems to be effective so far. It seems as if candidates are actually starting to veer off of attack ads because of this new law.
I chose this topic because of its ongoing controversy involving political advertisements. Political ads, more specifically negative ads, were increasingly becoming more inaccurate and less focused on the actual issues. Every candidate just wanted to make the other guy look bad. It starts a vicious circle of attacks that is difficult to do away with totally. Controversy, fights, and attacks are what get attention in this nation, but at what stake? The stake of the success of our nation and our nation’s politics. If the attack ads are the things that get all the attention, then how do the issues get attention? If all political campaigns are bases on is making the opponent look bad then what is getting accomplished?
“Stand by your ad” is bringing some integrity back into politics. Its creates accountability on behalf of the candidate and his campaign. Maybe this will make candidate think twice about what they say. An example of a candidate taking responsibility for is ad is by giving a message approval statement. Such as in John Kerry’s “Yours hands” ad ( ). As you can see, some candidates are still finding other, less obtrusive ways to go negative. It is more indirect.
According to CNN.com the “stand by your ad” law also put an end to the contributions of “soft money”, which involves money contributions from private parties that are unregulated and unlimited. And it limits advocacy ads right before the election and contributions made to the candidates. These are all attempts to even the playing field in political advertising.
I think this law is at least a step in the right direction for political advertisements. It shows that the government is at least taking a stand against negative advertising and making people take responsibility for what they say, in front of the nation. In an article found at LookSmart.com (under "stand by your ad" they discuss the positive and negative aspects of this law. While some believe that this law changes the tone of negative ads, putting the focus back on the issues, others hold that there is simply not enough proof to tell. Also there is the fact that this law has only been around for 4 years so the long term outcome of this law is impossible to determine.
However, in spite all the attempts of the government, they can not do anything about the ads put out by independent groups. A highly controversial ad put out in the last presidential election was the swift boat ad (CNN.com). As you can see, there is no one to take responsibility for this ad. No face to blame. But at least in terms of the candidates, something is being done. Candidates are going to think twice about what message they send out to the nation and maybe they will even check their facts first. Only time will tell where negative advertising will go from now.

Was Clinton "Outfoxed" ?

I wanted to focus my blog on an issue we are currently covering, which is the Mainstream Media’s relationship with politicians and the overall media influence on the political system. In particular I want to focus on Bill Clinton’s recent interview on Fox News. Fox is known to be a very conservative and Right Wing network, as documented by the movie “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism”. The interview in question was aired on September 22 and was done by Chris Wallace. It started off with pretty basic questions and both were acting amicably. Then Wallace turns the tables by telling Clinton that all Fox viewers want to know why he didn’t do more to stop Osama Bin Laden.

Obviously the interview is about to move in a different direction and the open hostility between the two is apparent. The entire time that they are talking, they constantly keep cutting one another off. It seems surreal to see it unfolding in to a full scale yelling match. Clinton responds to the question, calmly at first then intensifies his point, by saying, “I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden.”

Clinton counterattacks the conservative Wallace by blaming the Republicans for the recent criticism of Clinton’s lack of pursuing Al Quaida, according to republicans, and his over pursuing of bin Laden by Democrats. It has become an incredibly “he said, she said” battle. He calls Bush’s supporters “neo-cons” which in itself could be seen as a derogatory name. Clinton continues to get infuriated as Wallace continues his attack. Wallace continually cuts Clinton off mid sentence, and Clinton even responds mid answer “This is bull”.

The question that is brought to mind is if the media really is controlling the way we think? How do we determine if the news itself is what is biased? Who is responsible for watching our supposed “watch dogs”? There are really no provisions for a media outlet to be checked on what they say unless by competing news media, or extensive research, like the “Outfoxed” documentary. Even if someone were to write in a few weeks the inaccuracies and leading questions Wallace asked, the damage is already done. What will stick in people’s minds is that Clinton was being blamed for knowing beforehand about al Qaida and doing nothing to stop it. No one will remember the follow up that relieved him of any wrongdoing (which some have been trying to do by citing the 9/11 Commission Report). This interview is a perfect example of agenda setting by the media. Fox News could have focused the entire interview on Clinton’s humanitarian efforts, the Clinton Global Initiative or the upcoming election, but they chose their own conservative agenda. Clinton even accuses Wallace of luring him there under false pretenses saying, “[You] said that you’d spend half the time talking about — you said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7-billion-plus in three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.”

The reason the al Qaida topic was raised, and not the humanitarian efforts is that this takes away criticism on the current Bush administration by showing the former administration had the same knowledge and more time. Fox is telling the American public to start equating our current problems in Iraq, 9/11, and al Qaida with Clinton and not Bush. Fox was successful because this has been talked about very heavily for the last few weeks. The most often raised question is did Clinton know and do enough? Which was Fox’s intention, it was the issue they covered, and that is what infiltrated the public’s interest.

Clinton realizes he has been caught up in the middle of an agenda setting interview by saying, “Well, there’s a reason it’s on people’s minds. That’s the point I’m trying to make. There’s a reason it’s on people’s minds: Because there’s been a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression.” Clinton acknowledges that he feels ambushed by saying “So you did Fox’s bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me.”

Although Fox News asked the questions, they have tried to spin the interview in to Clinton as the aggressor. The Chief of Fox News, Roger Ailes said, “Bill Clinton's response to Fox anchor Chris Wallace's question about efforts he made to pursue Osama Bin Laden was an assault on all journalists." This entire Clinton interview is a perfect illustration of media’s influence and incivility in politics.

Scandal Rocks Florida Race for the House

In an election year in which every seat counts, the Republicans now find it a bit harder to keep control of the House. (The democrats need a net 15 seat gain to regain power.) Last Friday, Florida Republican Congressman Mark Foley resigned after six terms amidst an Internet scandal. Click here for a brief synopsis of the story. (Pages are high school students who get to work with law makers in Washington.) Foley was, according to the Associated Press, considered a "shoo-in for re-election." Now the allegations are getting ugly. The democrats are using this scandal to their advantage, calling this "an election year cover up." Many are suggesting high ranking officials knew about this inappropriate behavior for quite some time and did nothing. The Republicans are holding on for dear life calling for an investigation and trying to do damage control.

Investigations into who knew what, when, will no doubt continue, but for now the Republicans have named a replacement candidate, Joe Negron. This is where the story gets really interesting. It is too late to print revised ballots so Foley's name will remain on the ballot as the Republican choice. Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, believes Negron can prevail no matter the circumstances. I have to think that Bush is being overly optimistic. When you go to vote, and see the name of a man who's done inappropriate things with children, would you honestly mark his name as your choice? Not only that, but Negron has, what, a MONTH to try to overcome talk of this scandal and gain recognition and respect as a viable candidate? I think that it would be hard enough for him to do so, but not even having his name communicated on the ballot makes it even more difficult.

Now the democratic candidate, Tim Mahoney, has begun running new television ads featuring Democratic Senator Bob Graham calling Mahoney someone who "believes in faith, family, and personal responsibility." Its no coincidence that these are the very values Foley has just shattered for the Republican party.

This is an interesting race all around. How far are the democrats willing to go, and just how much of this will they use to their advantage? Will the investigation into the Foley scandal reveal even more corruption than we think? Can Negron mount a legitimate campaign in such turmoil and such short notice? And ultimately, how will Floridians vote? Will they turn to the democrats in the face of scandal or will they vote republican even though the ballot will show that they are voting for a man who's acted innapropriately--with children no less? Only time will tell, but Negron certainly has a difficult month ahead.