At college, I’ve been determined to cut back on my television usage. I’m not alone in this conquest; many of my friends also attest to being too busy or disinterested in television since high school.
Returning home for the glorious fall break, I found myself shying away from normality and watching some harmless TV as my relaxed schedule permitted. I was met with the irascible beast that is political advertising.
This time of year brings many things to the fore: Leaves change colors, jackets necessitate themselves, and Halloween begins its approach. Oh, and for goodness sake, don’t even think about voting for so-and-so. Commercial advertisements demand your utmost loyalty and consideration.
For an entire weekend, I was bombarded by messages from candidates of every possible political election. The advertisements ranged from county officials to state and national representatives.
At times, these ads completely dominated the commercial breaks. During one area news broadcast, the entirety of televised advertisements was politically based.
The focus of such ads has become increasingly negative. That is, instead of promoting a certain candidate, commercial time is used only to condemn and attack opposing candidates.
Such negative attention brings about contradiction and confusion. For example, an ad will run urging voters not to trust George Washington, but rather Thomas Jefferson. Immediately following is a commercial of Thomas Jefferson urging voting not to trust Washington, and so on.
Evidently, if viewers chose to take such advertisements seriously, every candidate in every election is dishonest, unqualified, and cannot appear in photographs unless in black and white with an unflattering expression. They also hate you, your freedoms, and anything fluffy and cute. Heavens, think of the children!
Most recently, the 2008 presidential election saw candidates spending millions of dollars in television advertisements. My personal memories of these campaigns include John McCain running ads purporting that Barack Obama supported sex-education for kindergarteners and subsequent ads from Obama inferring that McCain would bring further economic and military struggles if elected.
Historically, the strategy of publicly denouncing your competition is hardly a modern development. In an age before social networking and even (gasp!) news pundits, newspapers and campaign pamphlets were incredibly lax regarding journalistic standards.
In 1828, the Cincinnati Gazette publicly displayed its contempt for candidate Andrew Jackson, printing some rather unfavorable remarks about Jackson’s mother. This perhaps explains modern related jokes — our middle schoolers could merely be practicing early-19th century journalism.
If that wasn’t enough, Jackson’s opponent John Quincy Adams ran campaign flyers stating authoritatively that “[if] Jackson is to be President, you will be HANGED.” I think this constitutes the most blatantly hyperbolic advertisement in American political history.
There was also the time where Martin Van Buren, the incumbent president in the 1840 election, was the subject of a complete public outcry when his opposing candidate William Henry Harrison revealed that Van Buren installed a bathtub in the White House.
Americans, at the time more Paul Bunyan than Bill Gates, were so swayed by Harrison’s portrayal of Van Buren being lavish and articulate that they voted him out of office, leaving him with a sense of humiliation and cleanliness. Since extreme liberties with campaigning and journalism exists currently and most definitely existed back in the 19th century, hasn’t anyone tried to restrict candidates from running such obvious smear campaigns? Doesn’t anyone care if public issues are covered equally and fairly, reflecting opposing views honestly with integrity?
Well, simply put, of the 221 years of American elections, such regulations existed loosely for at most 38 years.
The Fairness Doctrine, introduced in 1949 (but not officially by the Federal Communications Commission until 1981), established a public importance for journalistic honesty and balance. Really, who could argue against that?
Oh, right, the pundits and politicians. No longer able to publicly slander opponents and popularize unsubstantiated claims, such figures pointed to the Doctrine’s hindering of the First Amendment’s right to free speech. In other words, the Fairness Doctrine revoked their freedom to manipulate America’s political discourse and audience.
As a result, slanderous television advertisements are categorized as campaign strategies, and hyperbolic and extreme views are reported on news broadcasts disguised as “opinions.” Instead of responding to false claims and ads, the strategy of politicians seems to be “counter with a harsher, more insulting publication.”
It’s an endless downward spiral. Freedom of speech wins again.
As a newly American voter, I’m finding it difficult to dig past the negativity. With nothing to stop them, candidates make the truth even harder to ascertain. It’s going to be an interesting upcoming few weeks.