With Ford, Webb and a score of House candidates under extreme negative attack these days, cable news has been doing the devil’s work by replaying Republican campaign ads over and over, ostensibly to debate how deplorable they are. Sure, negative campaigning has been a story all summer, e.g. with the Macaca issue, but this is a special case because of the importance of campaign advertising. Every time that these ads are played–even if in the context of a discussion of their blatant negativity or even inaccuracy–the GOP and its candidates are getting free advertising. Consider how much it would cost George Allen to air his ridiculous “Webb is a pervert” ad on a national cable news show. It takes a massive fundraising effort to even air it a handful of times in key media markets at home, but here is his ad and his spokesman on a national program. This is a serious issue for a number of reasons.
First, campaigns can’t get anything for free. If you loan your car to a candidate, you’ve made a donation-in-kind and it is supposed to be reported. The effect of this free advertising amounts to a major loophole in campaign regulations. Second, because of the prospect of free advertising, campaigns are being given a massive incentive to say things that are so vile that they’ll get picked up. I would wager that MSNBC has played the attacks on Ford and Webb more times than the campaigns that created them. For a cash-strapped and desperate campaign, why wouldn’t you go uber negative? This is evidenced by the House races that are getting attention only for the Republicans’ negativity. In NY, a congressional candidate Michael Arcury is being attacked for making a $1.50 call to a sex line even though it has been proven that he misdialed a single digit. In WI, a Democrat apparently cares more about old men masturbating than he does about young men dying in Iraq. No one buys these attacks, but here they are on the news–presented as news.
The third issue here is the cumulative effect that playing local ads on a national program has. In aggregate, the Republicans may look negative but the Democrats look like perverted (Webb), corrupt (Menendez), masturbating (Arcuri) playboy (Ford). This is the biggest problem because it has a similar effect as actual news stories about the Republicans’ failures on actual policy issues. There is a fundamental difference between the Foley-Hastert scandal and a negative ad about Ford being a playboy. Each of these negative ads have been slammed as either untrue or hyperbole at best. Mark Foley preyed on young boys and was protected by his House colleagues. That’s true. There is a big difference between a war veteran’s steamy novel and non-veteran, pro-war Republican. [update: Insert Billmon here] Voters know the difference between issues and bullshit, often entirely because the bullshit comes in the form of a campaign ad. It would be nice if the media could resist the temptation to go negative, even if candidates can’t. Negativity doesn’t need an enabler.
Finally, the repetition of negative ads of one candidate by the media can only encourage his opponent to try the same strategy. At this point, with a week and a half to go, no Democrat who is facing similar ads should think twice about making one of their own and sending a copy directly to the networks. The DNC should be seeing the cumulative effect of all these ads airing on national TV and work to balance it with their own ads. Frankly, if the Democrats wake up on November 8th without a huge grin on their faces, they will be to blame not only for not going negative in specific races, but for not going negative all over to stake a claim on this story, too.
It would be much better if a campaign or a party had to pay to get an ad on the air. The way it exists now, FOX News, MSNBC and CNN are the cheapest media buys a campaign can make, and that’s absurd. Let’s require campaigns to pay for a national ad spot and see how many of these ridiculous shows air next election. Would it be so bad if Chris Matthews had to fill his hour with issues instead of shilling?
Technorati Tags: 2006, Allen, Campaign finance, Democrats, Media, Republicans
October 28th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
I recently read (can’t remember where) that the RNC has spent 90% of its ad budget on negative ads. As you lay out here, the why is obvious. The coverage is free. What goes unstated in your post, though, is that negative ads work.
An article in The Nation this week recommends Instant Runoff Voting as a means to reduce negative campaigning.
Sounds like an interesting solution to me.
October 28th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
They are definitely effective, but their efficacy is dramatically increased when they actually make it on the air. Campaigns can’t just decide to make an ad, they have to find room for it in their budget. After that, they have to pay to get it on the air EVERY TIME IT PLAYS. The RNC could spend a tenth on air time and just rely on the networks to run the ads as “stories.”