In this pivotal election year, fellow citizens, I give you a chilling vision of two Americas.
One America is the swing states, the dozen or so states that don’t fall into the Democratic or Republican camps and will ultimately decide the presidential election. Those unhappy states — they know who they are — are already being flooded with noisy political advertising, day and night.
The other America, the happier America, is what political strategists call “safe states.” In these lucky places, television viewers are mostly safe from being inundated with presidential political harangues.
Election day is almost four months away, but the bombardment has begun in key swing cities such as Columbus, Ohio, and Orlando, Fla., where television stations are already running short of advertising time to sell. One media consulting firm, Borrell Associates, forecasts that political advertising this year will approach $10 billion nationwide, a huge increase from the roughly $7 billion spent in 2008.
If those numbers look suspiciously round, it’s because they’re just guesses. Nobody knows how much money will be spent because so much of the spending is coming from a new source, the “independent committees” that can raise money in unlimited amounts — and, in many cases, can keep their donors anonymous.
Political advertising, and spending on political advertising, isn’t inherently bad. Just ask the owners of those television stations, who have seen their businesses get a nice shot in the arm.
And even negative political ads — the ones with ominous music, accusing candidates of mismanaging the economy or flip-flopping or being unprepared to handle a crisis — aren’t inherently bad.
Scholars who study these things say that negative ads are often more informative — and even more accurate — than positive ads, in part because they get more scrutiny. When a candidate tells you he’s fighting for America’s families or working for better schools, who can prove him wrong? But if he calls his opponent a felon or — worse — a job outsourcer, he knows he’d better provide some evidence.
“Negative ads can be good because they generate a conversation,” argues John G. Geer, a political science professor at Vanderbilt University who watches ads so you don’t have to. “It’s a struggle between competing messages, and voters have to adjudicate their accuracy. But that’s what campaigns are about.”
This year, though, voters in the swing states are likely to have a harder time adjudicating the accuracy of the advertising they see. First, because there’s going to be so much of it. And second, because so much of it will come from those anonymous independent committees — and their commercials tend to be less scrupulous about the facts.
“Third-party ads are more deceptive because they’re less accountable; you can’t tie the candidate to them,” noted Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which runs a monitoring project called FactCheck.org. “And when they’re anonymous as well, we’ve already seen this year that those ads have a higher level of deception.”
So far, the new groups with anonymous donors are overwhelmingly Republican, and they have big plans. The Crossroads organization founded by former George W. Bush aide Karl Rove says it expects to raise $300 million; another, funded partly by the conservative Koch brothers, promises $400 million.
But that doesn’t mean Democrats have unilaterally disarmed: The “super PAC” supporting President Obama says it hopes to raise $100 million.
It also doesn’t mean that the GOP will have a monopoly on deceptive advertising.
FactCheck.org has identified problems with ads supporting each of the candidates. About an Obama ad that took aim at Bain Capital, the investment firm Romney once ran, the website concluded: “Some of the claims in the ads are untrue, and others are thinly supported.” A Romney ad questioning Obama’s loans and grants to the solar industry, including companies run by Democratic donors, “strains facts to make its point” and “twisted” the words of the Energy Department’s inspector general, the group found.
What can voters do about these ads? The first step is to watch them, whether you’re in a swing state or not. Many are available on YouTube or on the sites of watchdog groups.
The second step is to check their accuracy, by going to FactCheck.org or one of the other organizations that do the work of evaluating political advertising claims.
The third step, Jamieson says, is that if you think a commercial is deceptive, you can ask a television station manager to take it off the air until it’s been fixed. Stations are required to run commercials from candidates as is, but not commercials from independent groups.
The problem is that television stations like the millions of dollars in revenue they’re collecting for these ads, and they can charge a higher fee to independent committees than to candidates, who get a break on advertising rates.
“The stations don’t make money on the candidates,” Jamieson noted. “They make it from third-party groups.”
I don’t know how you’re spending your weekend, but I’m devoting mine to watching a bunch of these commercials. In my next column, I’ll unveil my picks of the season’s best and worst ads so far.
• McManus is a columnist for The Los Angeles Times.
Comments (16)
Add commentBill Moyers
Recently Bill Moyers had what I consider an excellent article on political campaign advertising and "freedom of speech". He pointed out that "free speech" is not "free". Someone pays for the advertising to have their "voice" heard - those with lots of money.
If interested, the article can be read on the internet at Bill Moyers.com entitled "The cowardly lions."
Don't forget negative blogs.
An interesting story in the Spokesman-Review:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/jul/10/s-r-must-provide-info-anony...
Nothing to see here, move along
Every election season pundits whine and cry over attack ads, as if such things had never existed before.
Victory by a mudslide
Along with its use of party machinery and mass media, the 1828 campaign’s attack politics stand out. Facing a mythic opponent, Adams’ supporters resorted to virulent mudslinging, questioning Jackson’s military record, emotional stability and beloved wife.
The Coffin Hand Bill was anti-Jackson propaganda at its most creative, a printed chronicle of people “murdered” by Andrew Jackson including executed militiamen and a civilian stabbed with a sword cane during a street altercation. The masthead featured black caskets and a notice of Andrew Jackson’s “Bloody Deeds.” Jackson had explanations. The militiamen were deserters who had destroyed and stolen government property. The man he had run through had been seizing a rock as a weapon. Nevertheless, Jackson’s history of dueling and quarrels gave his enemies ample content.
The Jacksonians had no trouble taking the low road as well. They pounced on a billiard table in the Adams’ White House, evidence of government funds spent on “gambling furniture.” Earning the derogatory title “The Pimp of the Coalition,” Adams was accused of procuring a teenage girl for Czar Alexander I while serving as U.S. minister to Russia.
The most devastating smears targeted Jackson’s wife of over 30 years, Rachel. The Adams press began publishing stories that Rachel had not received an official divorce from her previous husband when she married Jackson. Detractors further hammered Jackson as sanctimonious, a self-proclaimed reformer whose private life was immoral.
-Public Relations Society of America
sad but true
too many will accept anything they hear in an add or read on the internet. Perhpas it is becasue they have decided who they will vote for and then need to find more reasons to believe their chose is best because the other candidate is (insert reasons here.)
Alaska needs to be a swing state
We need to get a slice of that $10 billion. Why should Ohio and Colorado get to hog it all?
I'm just sorry the mainstream
I'm just sorry the mainstream tv stations are profiting. That'll keep them in business another year!
The only thing of interest in this spiel was that FactCheck.org is run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Guess who has ties to the Annenburg Foundation - yup - Obama and Bill Ayers. They ran the Chicago Annenburg Challenge.
Well, that's another website that's getting the heave-ho. Nonpartisan, I doubt it.
@wally, Bill Moyers is a leftist propagandist who promotes his agenda on PBS with taxpayer money. Ick...no thanks.
For those that care, The Cowardly Lions that Moyers writes about are the Supreme Court justices and the Citizens United ruling. Whine, whine,, whine...
Calypso
I understand your opinion that Bill Moyers is a "leftist propagandist",
However, your opinion doesn't "make it so" it is your opinion.
It is just your opinion as I have my opinion, that doesn't make our opinions "facts" the "truth" or anything other than just "that's my opinion."
I suspect however, if one looks at the life of Bill Moyers, his writings and what he says, they may not agree with you.
Anybody out there that agrees with Calypso that "Bill Moyers is simply a "leftist propagandist"??????????????
@wally - but words have
@wally - but words have meanings. Then when one looks at the definition of the words and looks at the examples of the person's writings or speeches or whatever and they fit the definition, it becomes more than an opinion.
Conservative has a definition. Socialist has a definition. The definition of propagandist is, "the deliberate spreading of information, ideas, or rumors in an effort to either help or harm a person". That's exactly what Moyers does. One of his latest propaganda attacks is against Rep. Allen West.
Google 'Bill Moyers is a far left propagandist' and see what comes up. He's a bad guy...and I don't really like taxpayer money supporting his "opinions".
Calypso again it is just your opinion
Calypso, you can hang on and hang on to your opinion and you have every right to do so. Others have their opinions as well. But there is huge difference between having one's opinion and giving factual information, data and evidence to support their explanation.
Yes there are propagandist attacks on others as there has been throughout human written history.
One thing a person learns in studying science, history and logic is that there is huge difference between gathering or researching data and evidence and coming to a conclusion or explanation and someone saying " I am right and correct, and have a couple of illustrations to support it." That is putting the conclusion first and trying to illustrate and support it.
Hey, I know all fishermen are liars. Why? I met two on the dock last week that told me they had record size king salmon.... they were dressing out dog salmon as proof.
Calypso
Here is, as the Mafia supposedly said, is "an offer you can't refuse."
Let's sit down some day over coffee or tea, and I will explain to you Aristotle's "square of opposition.."
Now I know fully well that Aristotelian logic and biology does not really give us a full and adequate path to understanding biology, astronomy, economics, modern science and many other things. But it does give us a way of looking at our Western World languages and the way we use "universal statements" like "All x are y" or "No x are y" or "Some x are not y and some x are y."
When people say "all liberals are" "all conservatives are" or "all scientists agree" or things like that then Aristotle does give us some tools to determine whether or not something is just one's opinion or whether it is something that can be tested to see if it is "verifiable" apart from one's opinion.
Then, over coffee or tea, we can come to an understanding of each other's opinion. Doesn't that sound like a fair thing to do?
wally, now you're splitting
wally, now you're splitting hairs. You're sounding like Clinton - "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is"!
Liars are liars...and Moyers is a liar.
And speaking of liars - how can you explain Obama today accusing Romney of possibly committing a felony? It's despicable and an outright lie. That seems to be the MO of the left, huh?
Mitt Romney
"Mitt Romney isn't a vulture venture capitalist. Vultures only eat dead things." - Stephen Colbert.
"PETA is not happy that my dog likes fresh air." - Mitt Romney (after tying his dog to the roof of his car for 12 hours).
"I get speaker's fees from time to time, but not much." - Mitt Romney after disclosing that his 'not much' amounts to $374,000.
"I love this state (Michigan). The trees are the right height." - Mitt Romney after turning his back on Michigan's auto industry.
Calypso
That is the important thing about Aristotelian logic, or the explanation of how we talk about things - it is not "splitting hairs" it is trying to find out exactly what another person is saying and whether it is verifiable or not.
"Liars are liars" and "Moyers is a liars"
Do you really have verifiable facts and evidence that Bill Moyers is a "liar"?? If so, I and maybe many others would like to see the evidence. If it is just your opinion, then that's what is is, your opinion nothing more. To support your opinion as some form of "truth," please give citations to articles, television programs or whatever to support it. It can't be just selective illustrations, it has to be verifiable evidence that others can test and evaluate.
I sure hope your read all the details about "Obama accusing Romney of a felony".... from the reports I have heard, it was not exactly that. Did President Obama himself say that? What does "possibly" in your statement mean?.... that it is a fact, or that it may or may not be verifiable?
"That seems to be the MO of the liberals" ... or could it be the MO of many others, including conservatives. That is a general or universal statement to which there can be no exception for it to be true.... so said Aristotle.
Fuzzy thinking can lead to some real fuzzy conclusions.
Caly
You have fuzzed up my brain...please stop it!
Any...
Any conservative that votes for Romney is an idiot. Any person that believes what they hear on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc, are bigger idiots.
Mitt Romney has flipped on almost EVERY issue. EVIDENCE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9njHHyRI7g
Mitt Romney is a Democrat posing as a conservative.
Obama, we all know who/what he is. You can either like him for trying to make us live in his perfect world or you can hate him for endangering US soldiers, endangering citizens along the US/Mexico border, forcing us to pay a tax for not purchasing a service, crapping on the Constitution in EVERY regard and the list goes on.
They are BOTH scum bags.
Wouldn't it be nice if we had a candidate that would do the following:
Be honest about what they stand for
Never flip-flop without a good reason
Follow the Constitution ensuring state's rights
Follow the Constitution ensuring personal freedom
Force Congress to declare war before we send troops to battle
Have a plan that will balance the budget in five years while...
Shutting down the IRS
Audit the Federal Reserve
Go to a gold standard giving our currency REAL value
Slow the hidden tax (inflation)
But to many, this form of conservatism is "taboo". If people would take a moment, look online and see that these stances are backed with an over 30-year record, then maybe people would go back to a real, prosperous, conservative government.
I hope each person that reads this will stop listening to the media long enough to see if you would actually like someone honest and straight up or more of the same corruption. To see this candidates policies, please visit:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/
And FYI, the media has said he withdrew, they have said that Mitt Romney has all the delegates, but none of this is true. Mitt Romney will have all the delegates if they can fix the convention in Tampa, which the RNC and Romney campaign have been trying to do. But until those votes are cast, nobody has any delegates.
Boy, if Ron Paul won in the convention, that would sure destroy the millions Obama has spent bashing Romney. He would then have to go after someone of charactar that would bury him in ANY debate!
Mitt Romney loves me this I know
For the RNC tells me so
wren
Wake up on the wrong side of the bed, did we?