2008 Woodie Awards
Are attack ads necessary? YES
Voters need to know both the good and the bad points about political candidates
By: Cristian Vasquez
Issue date: 9/23/04 Section: Insight
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Don't ban attack ads from being aired for any reason.
As the race for the presidency continues and candidates run around trying to sway potential voters, there are certain groups who launch ads attacking candidates, making them seem unfit for the role as president.
The recent controversy over such ads has made President George W. Bush speak out against them and even asked Massachusetts Senator and Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry to do the same.
But to ban such ads would be wrong. These ads are simply the views of certain groups supporting a certain candidate.
Attack ads, also known as 527's, are named after a federal provision that allows organizations to be tax exempt, allowing them to accept unlimited donations to finance these ads.
Campaigning has always played a major role in this nation's political races.
Whether it is the Democrats, Republicans or Independents, there are always people supporting a candidate, telling others to do the same. So why is it a bad idea to air attack ads?
If attack ads are to be banned, then so should candidate speeches. There is no difference between a candidate's speech and an attack ad.
Candidates speak to the masses trying to convince their audience why they are more qualified for the job than their opponent.
They attack their opponents by criticizing the policies they adopt or by bashing anything the opposition has done in the past. Speeches aren't that different from attack ads.
Just like in speeches, attack ads must contain facts and not lies.
If a lie were to be found in an attack ad, the media would immediately catch it, discrediting whoever paid for the ad.
As long as the information in the ad is true, then there should be no reason to ban it.
The only thing attack ads do is tell the voters whom to support.
So instead of banning attack ads, someone should screen them so that the information being displayed is accurate.
As the race for the presidency continues and candidates run around trying to sway potential voters, there are certain groups who launch ads attacking candidates, making them seem unfit for the role as president.
The recent controversy over such ads has made President George W. Bush speak out against them and even asked Massachusetts Senator and Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry to do the same.
But to ban such ads would be wrong. These ads are simply the views of certain groups supporting a certain candidate.
Attack ads, also known as 527's, are named after a federal provision that allows organizations to be tax exempt, allowing them to accept unlimited donations to finance these ads.
Campaigning has always played a major role in this nation's political races.
Whether it is the Democrats, Republicans or Independents, there are always people supporting a candidate, telling others to do the same. So why is it a bad idea to air attack ads?
If attack ads are to be banned, then so should candidate speeches. There is no difference between a candidate's speech and an attack ad.
Candidates speak to the masses trying to convince their audience why they are more qualified for the job than their opponent.
They attack their opponents by criticizing the policies they adopt or by bashing anything the opposition has done in the past. Speeches aren't that different from attack ads.
Just like in speeches, attack ads must contain facts and not lies.
If a lie were to be found in an attack ad, the media would immediately catch it, discrediting whoever paid for the ad.
As long as the information in the ad is true, then there should be no reason to ban it.
The only thing attack ads do is tell the voters whom to support.
So instead of banning attack ads, someone should screen them so that the information being displayed is accurate.