2008 Woodie Awards
Are attack ads necessary? NO
The media should leave the past behind it and focus on the candidates' future
By: Evan Ortega
Issue date: 9/23/04 Section: Insight
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Now that the media has narrowed its coverage of the presidential election down to two main parties, the time has arrived for interested Americans to choose the candidate they love the most (or hate the least).
In this year's election, many voters will rely on the news media, presidential debates and party platforms as sources of information on the candidates.
Unfortunately, attack ads will be used to mislead and influence public opinion using more propoganda than fact.
The problem with attack ads is that they will only reinforce the opinions of most voters, rather than shift their vote to the canidate the ads support.
This is because many Americans are chained to an ideology pre-fabricated for them by the Republicans or the Democrats, which is reinforced by conservative talk radio or the New York Times.
The best way for someone to get to know the real George W. Bush or John Kerry would be to look at their voting and legislative history, as well as their campaign donors. One could look at past promises and see whether they were kept to see how honest the current rhetoric is. Because most Americans are busy working and raising families, they have to rely on the information about the candidates' past.
The problem is that because this year's election is on the path of becoming the closest in America's history, many news organizations are poised to gain ratings off of the epic battle between the right and left.
To gain ratings, once respected reporters have fortfified their news reporting with vicious personal attacks and unsubstantiated allegations.
The most recent example is Dan Rather, who ran a story on "60 Minutes" accusing President Bush of lying about and failing to fulfill his National Guard duty. Rather and his employer, CBS, have now found themselves having to discredit their reporting.
Perhaps the "play with fire and you'll get burned," lesson Rather is learning applies to both Bush and Kerry. Kerry seemed pretty content while left wing fringe groups like MoveOn.org bashed Bush with claims and ads that accused him of deserting the National Guard and escaping service in Vietnam. He sure wasn't laughing when GOP interests counter-attacked with their "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" advertisements.
In this year's election, many voters will rely on the news media, presidential debates and party platforms as sources of information on the candidates.
Unfortunately, attack ads will be used to mislead and influence public opinion using more propoganda than fact.
The problem with attack ads is that they will only reinforce the opinions of most voters, rather than shift their vote to the canidate the ads support.
This is because many Americans are chained to an ideology pre-fabricated for them by the Republicans or the Democrats, which is reinforced by conservative talk radio or the New York Times.
The best way for someone to get to know the real George W. Bush or John Kerry would be to look at their voting and legislative history, as well as their campaign donors. One could look at past promises and see whether they were kept to see how honest the current rhetoric is. Because most Americans are busy working and raising families, they have to rely on the information about the candidates' past.
The problem is that because this year's election is on the path of becoming the closest in America's history, many news organizations are poised to gain ratings off of the epic battle between the right and left.
To gain ratings, once respected reporters have fortfified their news reporting with vicious personal attacks and unsubstantiated allegations.
The most recent example is Dan Rather, who ran a story on "60 Minutes" accusing President Bush of lying about and failing to fulfill his National Guard duty. Rather and his employer, CBS, have now found themselves having to discredit their reporting.
Perhaps the "play with fire and you'll get burned," lesson Rather is learning applies to both Bush and Kerry. Kerry seemed pretty content while left wing fringe groups like MoveOn.org bashed Bush with claims and ads that accused him of deserting the National Guard and escaping service in Vietnam. He sure wasn't laughing when GOP interests counter-attacked with their "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" advertisements.