Given the social controversy surrounding the election, what impact do political ads have in the political and social landscape? This is a very generic question, one that we ask ourselves during every election year. Campaign advertising is used as a tool by the politicians to spark a political debate and influence the voters their way and these campaign advertisements can be very controversial as the politicians have the ability to speak freely. Candidates are not confined to the same standard as the commercial companies which are bound by restrictions that preclude them from making false claims about their products or those of their competitors. And the reason is simple, their statements and advertisements are considered as "political speech," which falls under the protection of the First Amendment.
In a news article written by Amy Sullivan at Times in 2008, she explores the issue of candidates openly lying to their supporters in commercials or other forms of advertising by making a very compelling argument and going off to state that in terms of political advertising truth is simply irrelevant. She uses logos throughout her article to provide readers with facts to make their own assertions regarding this issue. For instance, when Kentucky Fried Chicken tried to claim that their fried chicken could be part of an effective diet program in 2004, the Federal Trade Commission penalized the company as this was untrue which is not the same standard as political advertisements. Candidates possess the ability to speak freely and make claims without providing concrete evidence as it comes under the protection of their rights more specifically the First Amendment. According to her article, this is most commonly known as a political loophole. She further goes on by saying that the broadcasters are actually obligated to run these ads, even though they might be false. However, The Federal Commission Act can provide a blanket policy of refusing all ads from such candidates but, it is not widely practiced. Some states have even tried to establish their own standards for truth in political advertising, most notably, in 1984, when Washington State passed a law which made it illegal to sponsor campaign commercials that knowingly "made a false statement of material fact.” As for the candidates they know, a far greater percentage of voters will hear the original lie in a campaign ad than ever read about the fact-checked version in a local paper or websites like Factcheck.org. Every so often, she says, a candidate can be shamed into revisiting a false statement. She cites an example of an ad the Obama campaign was using earlier in the campaign in which the Democratic Senator claimed he "worked his way through college." Factcheck.org asked for specifics about the jobs which Obama had held. It turned out to be merely two or three summer positions. The campaign stopped using the line and changed it to "He got through college with scholarships and hard work.” This is only one illustration that she provides and says that there are countless more. She uses logos again and gives us the statistics of the 2008 election and the campaign that Barack Obama and John McCain ran. As of late September, with the two candidates virtually tied, Obama's mostly true to the mostly false tally was 65 to 33, while McCain's was 47 to 51. She uses the 2008 election as an example to enlighten people and make them understand that we should not totally believe the campaign advertisements out there instead, we should make a decision after we have verified their facts.
In accordance with the first article, another article posted on the Pantagraph website, written by multiple authors focuses on how the candidates are at their worst during their campaign ads and uses pathos as it targets a wider audience so that the audience can feel disrespected regarding the fact that the candidates are publicly lying to them. This article essentially implies that these political advertisements are useless for us, as voters, to watch because we are not provided with truthful information and verified facts. Instead, we have these politicians making outrageous claims, taking a swipe at their opponents and promising the viewers something they have no intention of honoring. The article also brings up important points such as how candidates assault us on the broadcast and streaming media, and they come into our homes by mail or by people walking door to door and dropping off pamphlets spreading facts that they know to be untrue. It also talks about the good old days and how there was a time when media actually made an attempt to affirm the accuracy of the claims made in these campaign commercials and the managers being terrified over the notion that they might be fact-checked and caught lying. Furthermore, it talks about how politicians and their handlers have come to realize over time that if they put themselves in the position of repeating the same thing over and over, those statements, irrespective of their ridiculousness, would be accepted as fact by majority of the voters. This idea seemingly ridiculous is actually true and used by many politicians nationwide to spread their ideologies. The article also mentions that it takes a great deal of cash to flood a potential voter's head with their message, pro or con which is why the campaign’s treasure chest matters so much. That is how we end up with half-truths and fear-mongering repeated ad nauseam. Truth has little room in political advertising, especially during campaign season and there might not be a single candidate who actually means when he says “let's discuss things calmly and try to take our state and country in a positive direction into the future”. But actions speak louder than words. Continuing to watch these ads tells us all we need to know about the people who are attempting to maneuver their way into political power.
Both the articles acknowledge that the current trends among advertising are not unique to this generation. Nevertheless, they establish the fact that it is immoral for the candidates to openly lie to them through these campaign ads. Amy Sullivan provided us with logistics as she mentions the mostly true to false statements of the 2008 election. While article on the pantagraph argues that these political advertisements are useless to us as we are not getting the full details and most importantly the truth. It makes a claims that about these politicians saying that their actions particularly lying to us tells us a lot about who they are as individuals and what they are trying to accomplish.
Sullivan’s article of political advertising raised some important questions for me. If we, the public, know that these politicians are lying to us through these ads then that means so does the government. Why wouldn’t they step in at this time and try to talk down these accusations or try to ban the ads that they might know to be false? All of these false advertisements are representing a bad image for the politicians, the future government and America as a whole. Think about it, what would the other countries think if they saw any of these ads and then read about the details only to find that the person they were listening to was lying. They would make assumptions about how the US government is corrupts as their candidates lie openly and would definitely go through any means necessary to get what they want whether or not it is moral.
The pantagraph article also takes a swipe at the politicians and the untruthful campaign ads they run as it talks about the good old days of earlier media or no media at all. There were times when politicians were actually scared of lying and getting caught. There were consequences for their actions but nowadays it looks as if everybody is running wild, doing what they like, saying what they want and making promises to the whole nation that they have no intention of honoring. As a reader reading these articles and their examples of how this is all looking should concern every ordinary citizen to think about what kind of politicians they want to have for the future of this country.
After reading these articles, I am convinced that these false campaign ads are definitely an issue for the US, one that they need to contain before it spreads even more demoralizing the government. However, an argument can be made for the politicians who are just trying to say what they believe in and what they think they might be able to achieve if they were given the chance and all of these fall under the protection of the first Amendment, freedom of speech.
The article on Time and Pantagraph offer differing perspectives on the causes and solutions to these political advertisements and their effects on the audience. I encourage them, and anyone else who is serious about making changes to the systems and social structures to keep an open mind when watching these campaign ads. They might find that these advertisements may push the politicians to be better and honor the promises that they have made to the public.