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.
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.
posted by Lori | 8:32 PM
1 Comments:
Lori addresses a change in political advertising that is interesting because everyone has noticed it but no one talks about it all that much--the ubiquitous statement "I'm X and I approve of this message." When this phrase starting appearing on every candidate ad at the same time, many people were confused, but we've grown used to it. As Lori indicates, candidates, in ads sponsored by their official campaign, are required to take responsibility for the ad. I think it has helped to some degree--at least to the extent that it at least leads to more juxtaposition ads than completely negative attack ads. But it doesn't have the same impact on 527 groups because their names are not on the ballot and it doesn't hurt them to take responsibility for a really bad (clearly dishonest or unfair) ad.
Post a Comment
<< Home