There is something about attack ads that makes me automatically want to vote FOR the person being attacked.
No matter the party. No matter the issue.
The increasing prevalence of political advertising that forsakes the platform for the personal attack is extremely disheartening. It dumbs down the political discourse and leaves you feeling that the participants should hit the showers, like the ballplayers do, before they come out to give the press their post-debate spins.
Clichéd as it may be, we seem to be slowly moving towards more American-style advertising.
Fortunately, we still have a long way to lower ourselves to reach some of those depths, which border on outright character assassination. Listening to some of the 30-second spots on American radio in which a Democrat or a Republican is accused of everything short of hiding Osama bin Laden in the attic, you can hear the sound of the libel lawyers starting the meter running.
Our own federal, provincial and, most recently, municipal campaigns definitely have a nastier edge, as the fierce competition for the media spotlight convinces the competitors that they have to ramp up the rhetoric.
The federal election writ hasn’t been issued, yet the writ for dishing dirt apparently has been dropped. The Conservatives are out first with ads that put new Liberal leader Stéphane Dion on the defensive for the Liberals’ less-than-stellar performance on the environment while he sat at the Cabinet table.
The record of the Liberals on the environment and Dion’s contribution to said record is a perfectly legitimate target for criticism, but why does it have to be wrapped in a personal attack against the man?
Leave the lampooning of Dion’s bookish intellectualism and dalliance with separatism and Harper’s synthetic hair and goodbye handshakes with his children to The Rick Mercer Show, Royal Canadian Air Farce and This Hour Has 22 Minutes.
In comments this morning quoted in The Globe and Mail, pollster and TVO broadcaster Allan Gregg says attack ads feed, “the general cynicism... It’s probably smart politics. I don’t know if it’s good public policy.”
Attack advertising is, in fact, bad policy, because it splatters everyone in government and public life.
If politicians want some respect for their embattled vocation, they should stop slagging each other at every opportunity.
One of the reasons fewer people are turning out to vote every election could well be that they are increasingly turned off the entire process by the antics of the participants.
As the great Winston Churchill once said (and wouldn’t today’s advertising attack artists have drooled over his switches in party and his rumbling jowls?), “a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”
Comments (5)
The paradox behind the wave of attack ads are Harper’s using them to keep the lid on the “Ontario Works failed families epidemic”. Mr. Harris’s Social Assistance Reform Bill had unraveled under John Baird since 1997 causing the major regional structural problems before the programs were researched as failed boondoggles.
It’s this unfortunate form of "controlled media tactics" Mr. Rate Payer has been hit with propaganda spins because the outsourced tax increases occurred through secret commissions were done with out notifying the Elections Office. The only remedy was to remove constituents away from elections poles through the mandated regional coarse of action called POOLING
Posted by Wayne Nagy | January 31, 2007 12:32 PM
Posted on January 31, 2007 12:32
Whether another S.O.S. trademark from the "Harris Backroom Boys" are in the making, our Mugwump history lessons learn us Lennon and McCartney were caught in numerous constructive rehearsal arguments while tuning up their guitars and preparing new songs before the FAB Four hit the road.
Catching Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff in the middle of rehearsal tune up sounds more of the same dueling air guitars Harper and Baird are famous for tripping over the “Heals” of their new Beatle Boots. Much to the “Same Old (pre judgmental) Song” that bombed out their last revolution.
“Old Hackers Never Die, They Just Smell that Way” ……… Cheesy !!!
Posted by Guitar Man | January 30, 2007 2:25 PM
Posted on January 30, 2007 14:25
James Carville, Bill Clinton's campaign manager in 1992 once said that 70 per cent of attack ads have no affect, 15 per cent backfire and another 15 per cent stick.
From what i see from Canadian campaigns
he's probably right.
Posted by OJ | January 30, 2007 9:08 AM
Posted on January 30, 2007 09:08
Hey there, John,
Of course, Good One on how loathesome Attack Advertising is!
You wrote:
"Attack advertising is, in fact, bad policy, because it splatters everyone in government and public life."
You're absolutely right but let's also remember that government/public life was splattered well before Attack Advertising became a prominent (and best) way for a candidate to avoid addressing real issues.
Fact is, John, I often wonder whether opposing candidates don't get together late at night to AGREE to do Attack Advertising.
Like this potential conversation between a Liberal and a Conservative.
LIBERAL: OK, Harry, we both know there's no difference between our two parties.
CONSERVATIVE: Well, that's not entirely true, Oppenfritzer, OUR Spin Department is to die for!
LIBERAL: Yeah, but--seriously. Face it. There's no real difference in the unbridled contempt we both have for The Public.
CONSERVATIVE: And WELL-DESERVED contempt, I might add.
LIBERAL: Oh MY! No question, no question!
CONSERVATIVE: There's just No Bottom to our Contempt-Buckets, huh, Oppenfritzer. (chuckles)
LIBERAL: Attack Advertising it is then, Harry.
CONSERVATIVE: (points to colleague snoozing in an over-stuffed leather chair) So, you think we should let Pinkney in on this?
LIBERAL: Nahhh, the NDP isn't even on my radar.
CONSERVATIVE: (extends right hand) It's agreed then. May the worst man win.
LIBERAL: So, Harry, is it true that Stephen likes you just a LITTLE TOO MUCH?
CONSERVATIVE: The campaign doesn't officially start til the end of the month, Fritzie.....
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BACK TO YOU, JOHN. You wrote:
"If politicians want some respect for their embattled vocation, they should stop slagging each other at every opportunity."
Ain't that simple, John. I've been emailing Ontario's Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (John Gerretsen) AND his Parliamentary Assistant (Brad Duguid).
Just to see whether I can get them to DEFINE "accountable".
We've been back-and-forth, back-and-forth.
I STILL can't get either of them to define "accountable".
No, John, believe me, these politicians NEED Attack Advertising, lest they have to answer nasty questions like "Please define "accountable".
CRIPES! They wouldn't want THAT!
John, you wrote:
"One of the reasons fewer people are turning out to vote every election could well be that they are increasingly turned off the entire process by the antics of the participants."
And a GREAT STRATEGY Attack Advertising is for politicians, John! The fewer people who turn out, the better the chances for The Incumbent to stay The Incumbent, John!
You ended today's BLOG with:
"As the great Winston Churchill once said (and wouldn’t today’s advertising attack artists have drooled over his switches in party and his rumbling jowls?), 'a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.'”
Precisely. And let's not forget that a lie went "halfway around the world" in Churchill's pre-computer-chip-pre-communication-satellite time.
With today's technology, 'a lie propels itself INSTANTLY, onto CNN, YouTube, Blackberried and BLOGGED around the world before the truth has a chance to go "Whaaa?'”
Challenge for you, John. Just for fun. Email politicians --at Any Level of Government.
Ask them to DEFINE "accountable".
Seriously. Try it. THAT'S why there's Attack Advertising.
Posted by The Mississauga Muse | January 30, 2007 5:56 AM
Posted on January 30, 2007 05:56
Well, I certainly remember that attack ad the Liberals ran a year or two back with the sound of soldiers marching down the street while Stephen Harper was shown in the background, and we all know how THAT turned out, didn't we?
Posted by crazyrabbits | January 30, 2007 12:31 AM
Posted on January 30, 2007 00:31