Inaccurate Campaign Ads

 

 
 

Inaccurate Campaign Ads

A recent article written by Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times reveals a number of election ads in the current American Presidential race to be misleading. It is becoming an apparent tall tale campaign (by both Democrats and Republicans) leading most of the public to believe these phony facts. According to the one of the aides of a presidential candidate on these ads, "There's only so much you can do in a 30-second ad"...obviously a brainless reason. The question is, where is the democracy in this?

"Even people who don't think there is much information in these ads and say they don't learn anything from them tell us they believe factoids they could only have gotten from these ads, and they're wrong," said Brooks Jackson, director of Factcheck.org, an Annenberg Public Policy Center Web site that vets political advertisements for accuracy. "It's beyond subliminal — it's something else I haven't come up with a name for."

To read more, click this link: Campaign Ads Are Under Fire for Inaccuracy
(reg might be req. try fodosnak/fodosnak)

Adland: 

Comments

While we are on the subject, did y'all see adages article CONSUMERS LARGELY UNMOVED BY PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ADS?

92% Say Ads Have Not Altered Their Voting Preferences
A full 88% of national respondents said the ads have not changed their opinion about key issues in the race, although domestic issues such as employment and the economy have been more affected than issues such as the Iraq war, education or abortion.
To no one's surprise, two out of three respondents -- regardless of state or party -- view political ads for the presidential race overall as too negative. And that could work against the candidates, as one-third of respondents said a candidate's negative ads -- rather than sway them to vote for that candidate -- may actually influence them to avoid voting for them.


Oddly, while ads from the Bush campaign have mostly attacked Mr. Kerry, who has been running mainly biographical spots, poll respondents saw the challenger's ads as more negative than Mr. Bush's. A full 61% of those surveyed said Mr. Kerry's ads were more negative in the national sample vs. 54% for Mr. Bush.


The reason may be that Democratic groups such as Media Fund and MoveOn.org have been running anti-Bush attack ads and the comments about the negative Kerry ads apparently reflect those ads rather than those from the campaign itself.

gosh, the "I am Kerry/Bush and I approved this message"-thing isn't clear enough or what?

remember - people are idiots.

This only makes the Neil Postman one-liner come to my mind:

"Cosmetology has replaced ideology." (from "Amusing Ourselves To Death" 1985)

On the other hand, as a Swede living in a country with rather strict rules of political campaigns (and monarchy), I can feel that the uprising against the Kerry/Bush campaigns is unlogical since the whole system of American politics is a system of political consumerism. So what if campaigns are inaccurate in the facts they state - it's not "who's right" who will win rather "who's the best deceiever of the nation".

Add new comment

Top