Last semester we learned about negative ads and negative campainging. We also experienced how negative campaigning works during the election game. Now in reality we can see negative campaigning used. In South Carolina, where Obama is leading, Clinton aired a negative ad that attacked Obama for saying the Republicans were the party of ideas. The ad was a continuation of ads the Clintons have been using since the lead-up to the Nevada caucuses. Obama's spokesperson says that the ad was an attempt to obscure Clinton's own record of voting for Republican ideas.The article also says that the media fact-checkers feel that this attack took Obama's words out of context.
Will negative ads have the same effect if the person being attacked says the same thing about you?
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/23/603163.aspx
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think that negative campaigning has the potential to spiral completely out of control because the mud slinging can just go back and forth. Personally I think negative campaigning is easily disregarded becasue it seems to be common knowledge that one side will paint the other side in a bad light. Also I think people are smart enough to realize who is puttin gon these adds and will judge their credibility with that kknowledge.
I agree with Kelsey that as the primary continues and the debates get more heated people will increasingly use their discretion to decide whether or not to believe the negative ads. Most people have seen the hostility between Clinton and Obama and will probably view the negative ads with some skepticism. Also, there's been a trend for the public to mistrust the media, I think this mistrust will continue to grow as negative ads increase. These negative ads may also further taint people's view of politics in general.
Post a Comment