Why we should get rid of political advertising
Following the last presidential election, I wrote an article about the debris that resulted from the avalanche of distasteful political ads. Well, I can't say that it helped clear the air very much. But before the next mudball fight, we thought it a good idea to revisit the article. Just to get us all ready for what's coming. Here it is:
Now that I've been hanging around the human race for 50-plus years, I've come to some conclusions, beliefs if you will, which guide me as I head for the office or put out the cat. For instance, I believe that aliens have not yet landed, guns really do kill people and political advertising ought to be eradicated from our existence.
Obviously, there are many intelligent and highly regarded people who take the opposite view -- on all those issues. But that's why life is the rich fabric that it is. What's more, the good part about living here in the United States is that you don't get shot for disagreeing (most of the time).
The reason I feel the way I do about political advertising is that I've been making my living in advertising for nearly 40 years, and I know the damage it can do. There's an old, very old, adage that says, "nothing kills a bad product faster than good advertising." You get convinced to stop for a Bonzoburger, you don't like it, so hey, you don't eat there again. Ah, capitalism! But if you elect a candidate that doesn't work, you're stuck with him, pal. And before you get to not vote for him again, he gets to vote to send troops to Iraq, to build fences along the Mexican border and monkey with Medicare.
All this assumes that the only reason you vote for someone is their advertising. And there are those people who would say that they're not influenced by the ads. These, I suspect, are the same people who pay an extra $12,000 for an SUV because it has a first-aid kit. They say that while they may see the ads, they vote because of the issues and the platforms put forth by the candidates. This may well be true for a lot of folks. Or to put it another way, Oh, God, I hope so.
But the fact of the matter is that you get bombarded by a lot of advertising for one simple, proven-in-the-political-arena reason: It works. As Steven Kates wrote, "Political advertising is believed to work under certain conditions for certain types of voters and for certain types of purposes such as image development, agenda setting, or attacking opponents."
Even if you're not a "certain type of voter," ask yourself: Isn't this just a peachy way to elect people? It's image we want, so let's get ourselves a handsome guy -- he's much more qualified than Abe would ever be. And of course, we want the agenda set on TV, not by the needs of the voters, so let's make sure the election is about Dick Cheney's hunting skills, not about where the money is coming from for our schools.
But let's get to the real sirloin of this discussion, what we all know is poking us in the eye and giving us a national migraine: attack ads.
There is nothing wrong with attacking what an incumbent has or has not done. That's what debates are for. But in a debate, there is something called a rebuttal. It's the time when the attacked gets to respond to what's been said. At the same time and place, in front of the same audience. In other words, the attacker has to stand for what he's said. The same is true in a trial. An accusation is made, a defense is given.
But in a 30-second ad, anything can be alleged. By the time the respondent responds, days or even weeks have gone by. And of course, the natural reaction is to mount counter-attacks that are also immune to scrutiny. The net result for the viewer is an endless assault of shrill, demeaning finger-pointing. Congress on "Jerry Springer."
Don't kid yourself. Even as we take great delight in getting rid of suits in the office, there is a feeling that the institutions that make up the steel girders of our society are cracking. We can live with the fact that our politicians are, after all, just human beings. But can we survive if we force them to mud-wrestle to keep their jobs?
(More on this in our next episode, so stay tuned!)
Now that I've been hanging around the human race for 50-plus years, I've come to some conclusions, beliefs if you will, which guide me as I head for the office or put out the cat. For instance, I believe that aliens have not yet landed, guns really do kill people and political advertising ought to be eradicated from our existence.
Obviously, there are many intelligent and highly regarded people who take the opposite view -- on all those issues. But that's why life is the rich fabric that it is. What's more, the good part about living here in the United States is that you don't get shot for disagreeing (most of the time).
The reason I feel the way I do about political advertising is that I've been making my living in advertising for nearly 40 years, and I know the damage it can do. There's an old, very old, adage that says, "nothing kills a bad product faster than good advertising." You get convinced to stop for a Bonzoburger, you don't like it, so hey, you don't eat there again. Ah, capitalism! But if you elect a candidate that doesn't work, you're stuck with him, pal. And before you get to not vote for him again, he gets to vote to send troops to Iraq, to build fences along the Mexican border and monkey with Medicare.
All this assumes that the only reason you vote for someone is their advertising. And there are those people who would say that they're not influenced by the ads. These, I suspect, are the same people who pay an extra $12,000 for an SUV because it has a first-aid kit. They say that while they may see the ads, they vote because of the issues and the platforms put forth by the candidates. This may well be true for a lot of folks. Or to put it another way, Oh, God, I hope so.
But the fact of the matter is that you get bombarded by a lot of advertising for one simple, proven-in-the-political-arena reason: It works. As Steven Kates wrote, "Political advertising is believed to work under certain conditions for certain types of voters and for certain types of purposes such as image development, agenda setting, or attacking opponents."
Even if you're not a "certain type of voter," ask yourself: Isn't this just a peachy way to elect people? It's image we want, so let's get ourselves a handsome guy -- he's much more qualified than Abe would ever be. And of course, we want the agenda set on TV, not by the needs of the voters, so let's make sure the election is about Dick Cheney's hunting skills, not about where the money is coming from for our schools.
But let's get to the real sirloin of this discussion, what we all know is poking us in the eye and giving us a national migraine: attack ads.
There is nothing wrong with attacking what an incumbent has or has not done. That's what debates are for. But in a debate, there is something called a rebuttal. It's the time when the attacked gets to respond to what's been said. At the same time and place, in front of the same audience. In other words, the attacker has to stand for what he's said. The same is true in a trial. An accusation is made, a defense is given.
But in a 30-second ad, anything can be alleged. By the time the respondent responds, days or even weeks have gone by. And of course, the natural reaction is to mount counter-attacks that are also immune to scrutiny. The net result for the viewer is an endless assault of shrill, demeaning finger-pointing. Congress on "Jerry Springer."
Don't kid yourself. Even as we take great delight in getting rid of suits in the office, there is a feeling that the institutions that make up the steel girders of our society are cracking. We can live with the fact that our politicians are, after all, just human beings. But can we survive if we force them to mud-wrestle to keep their jobs?
(More on this in our next episode, so stay tuned!)
posted by Bob Welke at 5/24/2006 12:29:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home