In praise of negative political ads

Pundits, academics and media experts are always condemning negative political attack ads. We are told again and again that such ads contribute nothing to the democratic process.

But to my mind, there’s actually something worse than a nasty negative attack ad, and that’s a saccharine, upbeat positive ad.

Now before I explain myself, let me say I understand completely why there is a stigma attached to so-called attack ads. After all, they focus on negativity, they put candidates in a bad light and they usually manipulate the primal emotions of hate and fear.

I get all that.

But the idea that positive ads are superior because they tell us why we should vote for instead of against a candidate is largely a myth. In reality, positive ads are typically emotionally manipulative and intellectually vacuous.

To understand what I mean, consider the New Democratic Party’s positive TV ad that’s airing right now.

This ad is supposed to tell us in a positive, non-negative, non-attack sort of way why the new NDP leader, Thomas Mulcair, is a swell guy, who would make a great prime minister.

Proponents of political positivity probably love it.

But does the NDP ad really tell Canadians anything about Mulcair’s policies, or his ideas or about how he would govern differently than Prime Minister Stephen Harper?

Nope.

Instead, the ad starts out with actors, portraying a diverse group of “regular” Canadians, including a female doctor, a generic “worker,” and a suburban mother, reciting NDP talking points.

These actors, who by the way annoyingly finish each other’s sentences, tell us that Mulcair will “fight for my family”; that he “cares if I can make ends meet”; and that he “will take on Stephen Harper and win.”

These vague utterances might make me feel all fuzzy and warm inside, but they don’t really tell me much about the NDP’s platform.

How exactly will Mulcair fight for my family? Nobody tells us.

Then the ad briefly shows us Olivia Chow, the wife of the late Jack Layton, who, of course, is Mulcair’s predecessor. Chow assures us that Layton’s “vision” is in safe hands. But what is that vision? Nobody tells us.

Then the ad finishes with a smiling Mulcair making the following vapid statement: “I have always fought for you. We started something special together. Now let’s get the job done.”

What did we start? What job? Again, nobody tells us.

How is any of this supposed to help me, as a voter, make an informed choice?

Now I don’t mean to pick on the NDP here. Positive ads, in general, tend to be bland bits of political communication.

Typically they feature gushy imagery of candidates, often surrounded by loving family members and an adorable family pet, spewing out platitudes about how much they love their country.

In short, positive ads are usually emotional fluff, designed to make voters trust and feel good about a candidate or party. Mind you, there’s nothing wrong with that.

My point is just because an ad is positive doesn’t mean it will add to meaningful democratic debate or educate voters.

Ironically, it’s the much maligned negative ads that are much more likely to focus on the nitty-gritty of where a candidate stands on policies.

Just think about your typical attack ad: “Candidate Jones wants to raise taxes on everything!” or “A vote for candidate Smith is a vote to destroy our public health-care system”.

In short, attack ads often raise issues people actually care about. And this is one reason why, like them or not, negative spots resonate with voters.

Do such ads have an edge to them, do they sometimes oversimplify? Yes they do.

But the best attack ads also inform voters about a candidate’s possible flaws.

And isn’t informing voters what political ads should be all about?

Original Article
Source: Star
Author: Gerry Nicholls