Liars as Leaders
The Brave New Foundation is an advocacy group dedicated to drawing attention to the social injustices plaguing America. http://www.bravenewfoundation.org/ As the presidential election draws near, the Brave New Foundation is focusing on supporting Barack Obama and the Democratic Party’s efforts. Earlier this month, they posted an assessment of a series of ads approved by John McCain which “distorted” many comments Obama has made in his campaigns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk The constant scrutiny Obama has undergone is making this election one of the most negative campaigns to date. Instead of spending more money on informing Americans of why he is a qualified president, McCain is using his campaign dollars to take Obama’s words out of context and create messages that will cause America to view him in a negative light.
In one ad, McCain attacks Obama for wanting to have sex education classes for kindergarteners, when in fact Obama wanted to “protect young children from sexual predators.” In another ad, McCain says Obama deemed Iraq as a “tiny” country that did not pose a threat. Obama’s actual message was that Iraq (along with Cuba and Venezuela) is a tiny country compared to the Soviet Union, and would not pose a threat to America the way the Soviet Union would. A third ad criticized Obama for never supporting the troops, while McCain “always votes in favor of the troops,” yet the US Senate records prove, “John McCain has voted NO over 10 times on pro-veteran and active service member issues such as healthcare and body armor.” McCain also blames Obama for wanting to raise gas prices. McCain claims that he plans to drill more in America and “rescue family budgets.” The Department of Energy, however, says “the effects of drilling in America wouldn’t even be felt until 2030,” meaning McCain could not possibly take credit for lowering gas prices in the next four years. Several magazines such as Time and newspapers such as the New York Times were then quoted in the assessment by the Brave New Foundation. These magazines criticized McCain for upping the anti for “sleazy” political ads and constant deceit. These negative advertisements seem to show how far McCain is willing to go in order to bring down Obama. He has taken Obama’s messages completely out of context and misused the media to share false ads with America.
This assessment by the Brave New Foundation is an example of both negative ads and how the media utilizes the watchdog function to keep candidates honest. Typically, negative ads are used when candidates see that their competitor is favored by voters. If this theory is true, McCain must believe that Obama is favored by the public and his continual negative advertising methods may be an effort to bring down Obama’s appeal since McCain has already done everything in his power to raise his own approval rating. Though both candidates are guilty of releasing negative ads about their opponent, McCain seems to be guilty of releasing carelessly researched and therefore less credible ads about Obama. The watchdog function of the media allows a balance for the deceit in political advertising. Since it is against the law to not show an ad even if it is untrue, negative commercials have to be aired. The Brave New Foundation’s retaliation assessment of many of John McCain’s false ads can be shown to the public via the Internet on such websites as youtube.com in order to hold candidates accountable for their messages.
Since viewing many of the negative ads McCain has released, my respect for him has continued to diminish. It is my opinion that a man who will use such unfair techniques in order to skew what another candidate stands for is not worthy of trust. This assessment by Brave New Foundation has been effective in making me question whether or not McCain will be trustworthy as a president if he is not credible in his advertising. Character is not determined by whether or not someone wins, but how they win.
In one ad, McCain attacks Obama for wanting to have sex education classes for kindergarteners, when in fact Obama wanted to “protect young children from sexual predators.” In another ad, McCain says Obama deemed Iraq as a “tiny” country that did not pose a threat. Obama’s actual message was that Iraq (along with Cuba and Venezuela) is a tiny country compared to the Soviet Union, and would not pose a threat to America the way the Soviet Union would. A third ad criticized Obama for never supporting the troops, while McCain “always votes in favor of the troops,” yet the US Senate records prove, “John McCain has voted NO over 10 times on pro-veteran and active service member issues such as healthcare and body armor.” McCain also blames Obama for wanting to raise gas prices. McCain claims that he plans to drill more in America and “rescue family budgets.” The Department of Energy, however, says “the effects of drilling in America wouldn’t even be felt until 2030,” meaning McCain could not possibly take credit for lowering gas prices in the next four years. Several magazines such as Time and newspapers such as the New York Times were then quoted in the assessment by the Brave New Foundation. These magazines criticized McCain for upping the anti for “sleazy” political ads and constant deceit. These negative advertisements seem to show how far McCain is willing to go in order to bring down Obama. He has taken Obama’s messages completely out of context and misused the media to share false ads with America.
This assessment by the Brave New Foundation is an example of both negative ads and how the media utilizes the watchdog function to keep candidates honest. Typically, negative ads are used when candidates see that their competitor is favored by voters. If this theory is true, McCain must believe that Obama is favored by the public and his continual negative advertising methods may be an effort to bring down Obama’s appeal since McCain has already done everything in his power to raise his own approval rating. Though both candidates are guilty of releasing negative ads about their opponent, McCain seems to be guilty of releasing carelessly researched and therefore less credible ads about Obama. The watchdog function of the media allows a balance for the deceit in political advertising. Since it is against the law to not show an ad even if it is untrue, negative commercials have to be aired. The Brave New Foundation’s retaliation assessment of many of John McCain’s false ads can be shown to the public via the Internet on such websites as youtube.com in order to hold candidates accountable for their messages.
Since viewing many of the negative ads McCain has released, my respect for him has continued to diminish. It is my opinion that a man who will use such unfair techniques in order to skew what another candidate stands for is not worthy of trust. This assessment by Brave New Foundation has been effective in making me question whether or not McCain will be trustworthy as a president if he is not credible in his advertising. Character is not determined by whether or not someone wins, but how they win.
posted by Desirae | 7:54 PM
5 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
While I feel your frustration Desirae, I think we all have to realize that the candidate does not have time to sit and ponder the next way to negatively attack his opponent, they have teams of people to do that for them. I agree with you that all of this negative advertising is ridiculous, but I also don't think it is fair to point fingers at one candidate. Both campaigns are to blame for the negative advertising and frankly, I don't think we can take anything said in political ads, no matter which party the message is coming from, as truth. That is why everyone should do the research; watch multiple news stations, read online, and look at the fact checks. Let's be honest, both politicians are just playing the game.
I cannot stand negative advertisements. What is tough-is that negative ads will never go away from political advertisement. I try to ignore all those ads, even if it is from the candidate I want to win. There is some form of a lie in all those commercials.
In my opinion, negative advertisements are simply an attempt to win over uninformed voters. Through negative advertisements, individuals who have not actually learned about the issues at hand comprehend information that is not factual and, often times, believe it. Although negative advertisements are not a positive aspect of American politics, I think we have all come to understand that they will always remain in politics. Instead of writing off these advertisements completely, I think individuals should take these advertisements into consideration and question why exactly the candidates would put out such advertisements.
Desirae, I agree with you in the fact that you believe negative ads don't show good character traits such as trustworthiness, however, in this day-and-age, it's all about negative ads. Candidates need a way to bring down their opponent's approval rating, as you said, so this is the way they're going to succeed in that. Each candidate is just as guilty as the other when it comes to this because they know negative ads work to get the public's attention, and they work in having voters' minds start looking in a different direction.
Post a Comment
<< Home