Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cancer on the body politic; can negative attack ads be eliminated or at least curtailed?
Civil Discourse Now ^ | April 30, 2012 | Mark Small

Posted on 07/16/2012 9:32:10 AM PDT by teflon9

Why do negative ads work? Some people say the negative ads give them information upon which to base their decision at the voting table (those little four-legged stands we use in Marion County). A study from Stanford University says the information from negative ads generally is not accurate.

Perhaps negative ads work in the same way as Big-Time Championship Wrestling (as it was called when I was young; whatever it is called now). No one doubts the efforts of the participants, and the world is made a much simpler place when painted in black-and-white (with slightly better resolution vis-a-vis the graininess). As human beings, each us has a darker side, otherwise negative gossip would not be the nation’s leading pastime at work.

(Excerpt) Read more at civildiscoursenow.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: ads; attack; civility; courtesy; decency; demoralizing; embarassing
Negatve attack ads are an embarrassment. They make the American political system resemble a cage full of monkeys, flinging feces at each other in hope something sticks to their opponent, or at least to the wall. They demoralize the electorate and discourage voter participation. They also suppress any real discussion of policy. One wonders why TV and radio stations simply don't put their collective feet down and refuse to accept such ads. If done evenhandly, according to a strict set of criteria, such a boycott might pass constitutional muster.
1 posted on 07/16/2012 9:32:20 AM PDT by teflon9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: teflon9

Lots of people like negative stuff about those they don’t care for.


2 posted on 07/16/2012 9:37:11 AM PDT by stuartcr ("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teflon9
One wonders why TV and radio stations simply don't put their collective feet down and refuse to accept such ads

Because one party's accusation of "it's an attack ad" is another party's exposing the truth.

Does anyone really believe that the media would not use a compromise like that as a one way street to slam Conservatives?

3 posted on 07/16/2012 9:37:17 AM PDT by NativeSon ( Grease the floor with Crisco when I dance the Disco)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teflon9
can negative attack ads be eliminated or at least curtailed?

Never...Why? Because they work.

4 posted on 07/16/2012 9:38:04 AM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teflon9

I don’t expect either side to take the high road, so there’s nothing to do but dodge the feces both sides insist on flinging.


5 posted on 07/16/2012 9:38:49 AM PDT by Capn Freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NativeSon
Does anyone really believe that the media would not use a compromise like that as a one way street to slam Conservatives?

Exactly. The "cure" would only be worse than the disease.

6 posted on 07/16/2012 9:40:24 AM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: teflon9

>> according to a strict set of criteria

So what are the criteria, and who exactly determines them?

A “nonpartisan panel” like the Federal Election Committee? ROFLMAO


7 posted on 07/16/2012 9:42:07 AM PDT by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teflon9
Negatve attack ads are an embarrassment.

Just because something is negative doesn't make it untrue.

Lies are an embarrassment.

The truth is free speech, whether it offends you or not.

8 posted on 07/16/2012 9:42:15 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the sociopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teflon9

As long as a large percentage of the voting public determine who they are going to vote for (or against) based upon advertisements - then we will continue to have billion dollar campaigns, “attack” ads, etc.

An ignorant electorate necessitates a campaign based upon ignorance and soundbites and dishonest ignorant attacks.

Turn off the TV and turn on your brain.


9 posted on 07/16/2012 9:42:51 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teflon9

The Democrats are all for “civil discourse”. Which they define as allowing them to attack conservatives all they want, while prohibiting any response from the attacked conservatives.


10 posted on 07/16/2012 9:43:10 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (If I can't be persuasive, I at least hope to be fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teflon9
You joined just to post this kind of Lefty crap, didn't you?

teflon9
Since Jun 26, 2012

Free speech about your candidate is so annoying, isn't it?


11 posted on 07/16/2012 9:44:13 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the sociopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NativeSon

If the compromised was applied in a biased way, news outlets would be sued quicker than you could spell “cat”, and they’d lose too. It would have to be applied straight down the line to have any chance of standing up to legal challenge.


12 posted on 07/16/2012 9:44:32 AM PDT by teflon9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: teflon9

I’m still waiting for real fighting from the GOP.
We recognize freedom of Speech in this Nation. We aren’t particularly in favor of outright lies like are coming from Obozo and his party. Still, it is not the roll of government to determine what can or can’t be said.

When we start calling the tin pot dictator in the White House, a Communist, bigoted, community agitator, dreaming of fulfilling his illegitimate daddy’s anti-colonial dreams by destroying America and the West in favor of an Islamic Caliphate, things might be considered negative. Accurate, but negative.
Then just maybe we can talk about negative campaigning. I’m not sure that even then there is any problem. But,until then, any politics with the Zero is a blood sport and failing to recognize that will result in our slaughter.


13 posted on 07/16/2012 9:51:08 AM PDT by Steamburg (The contents of your wallet is the only language Politicians understand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

No. My candidate is, since I’ve no other choice, Mitt Romney. And it infuriates me that Zero and his 503c lackeys are throwing all this “Bain Capital” garbage at him, while not talking about what he (hasn’t) accomplished or what his polices are or will be. If negative attack ads were curtailed, Zero would be forced to acutally campaign on the issues, and what he will do.


14 posted on 07/16/2012 9:55:16 AM PDT by teflon9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: teflon9
If the compromised was applied in a biased way, news outlets would be sued quicker than you could spell “cat”,

That would never happen. First, how to enforce a breach of a "compromise", second, look around at all cr@p that the Dems are doing/have done and get away with. The media protects them now, crimes are ignored, do you think that this would not be abused?

and what court would rule?

I'd rather have a "zoo monkey sh*t-fight" everyday than have a law regulating my right to free speech

15 posted on 07/16/2012 9:57:23 AM PDT by NativeSon ( Grease the floor with Crisco when I dance the Disco)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: teflon9

Negative ads will never go away. JFK’s campaign adviser figured out that making people change their vote was a 2 step process, first you get them to not vote for the other guy, then you get them to vote for yours, and he further figured out that if you do step 1 well enough you don’t actually need to do step 2. It’s a lot easier to scare voters away from your opponent, and once enough people are not voting for him you win.


16 posted on 07/16/2012 9:58:59 AM PDT by discostu (Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teflon9
It's called "free speech."

Romney is free to attack back. He has lots more ammo than Ubama.

But he seems to lack the balls.

That is a flaw with Romney, not free speech.

17 posted on 07/16/2012 9:59:14 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the sociopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: teflon9
ONLY IN POLITICS: can you imagine even being considered let alone getting hired by denigrating another person who also applied for the position? To fix the system we should demand NOTA (none of the above) be a choice on every ballot.
18 posted on 07/16/2012 10:01:57 AM PDT by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: discostu

And that makes the article’s point! A fair and evenhanded (and I know most of you believe that’s impossible) supression of negative ads (by media boycott—not by unconstitutional gov’t fiat) would get rid of all that, and actually force voters to concentrate on ... get ready ... issues!


19 posted on 07/16/2012 10:13:15 AM PDT by teflon9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: teflon9
If negative attack ads were curtailed, Zero would be forced to acutally campaign on the issues

Zer0 isn't even letting the Constitution "force" him to act properly.

Look at his reckless disregard for Congress' rejection of amnesty.

Look what he did last week in cancelling Welfare Reform, a 16 year old federal law.

What makes you think he'd obey some new law that tells him not to say bad things ?

.

20 posted on 07/16/2012 10:44:55 AM PDT by repentant_pundit (Sammy's your uncle, but he behaves like a spoiled rotten kid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
“The truth is free speech, whether it offends you or not. “

Exactly correct! To the rest of you.... FREE SPEECH..... you might have heard of it.

TRUTH is what we need.

Negative is just another persons freedom fighter.

21 posted on 07/16/2012 11:11:12 AM PDT by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: teflon9

But they’ll never do that. And we really don’t want the media, an inherently biased group, deciding which ads are negative or aren’t. It’s a job they won’t be good at.


22 posted on 07/16/2012 2:56:10 PM PDT by discostu (Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: teflon9

Without negative political ads, teh only way people would learn about records would be from the leftist media.


23 posted on 07/16/2012 4:38:41 PM PDT by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: repentant_pundit
But it wouldn't be a law. I'm talking about a private agreement among all broadcast media to boycott these ads. If the boycott were upheld properly, Zero (or the guy running for county dogcatcher) could send negative attack ads to the broadcasters until they were blue in the face--they just wouldn't be aired!
24 posted on 07/17/2012 6:45:04 AM PDT by teflon9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: teflon9
But it wouldn't be a law. I'm talking about a private agreement among all broadcast media to boycott these ads.

OK, fair enough. I'm all for private agreements.

But if I had a media company, a website perhaps, I'd not join the coalition of "all" broadcast media.

This is a large nation; many others would refuse to join such a coalition to boycott "negative" ads.

I, and many others, would gladly accept ads that tell the truth about someone like 0bamao.

And the truth might just be percieved as negative toward him !

25 posted on 07/17/2012 7:37:56 AM PDT by repentant_pundit (Sammy's your uncle, but he behaves like a spoiled rotten kid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: repentant_pundit

If such a boycott movement ever gained traction, public support for it would be so overwhelming that only the smallest and most obscure outlets would ignore it.


26 posted on 07/18/2012 7:47:40 AM PDT by teflon9 (Political campaigns should follow Johnny Mercer's advice--Accentuate the positive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson