No. I don't mean make rude hand signs at the TV and Radio every time you see or hear a political attack ad.
I mean flip it around so that those who produce them will realize its hurting themselves more than their opponents.
How do you flip it around? We spread the idea that Attack Ads are a more truthful description of the attacker than the attacked.
If Joe says Jane is a slut, it because Joe is hiding his own sluttiness. If George says John behaved badly during the war, it is to hide George's own questionable war record. If Jim says Jean wants you to pay more in taxes, so she can pay less, its because Jim wants to pay less on his taxes and doesn't care who has to pay more.
Once you start listening to these ads flipped, they make more sense and have more actual truth than they do straight. In neither case is that much truth, but flipped it is signifigantly more.
Especially when the attacker states at the end that he/she paid for the ad and agrees with it completely.
Don't limit this idea to people. Propositions and ammendments also work with being flipped. "Only greedy Special Interests want you to vote Yes on Prop 2" really means "Our greedy Special Interest wants you to vote No on Prop 2."
But for this to work, you have to flip all the attack ads, even those put on by your favorite politicians, or causes, or those that support them.
Remember, if this idea, this meme, takes hold and spreads, then the motivation for creating the attack ads we hate will vanish, and hopefully, soon, so will the ads.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:We spread the idea that Attack Ads are a more truthful description of the attacker than the attacked.
But that's simply not true.
I'm sure it is in some cases, but not as a general rule.
I don't like the idea of combatting evil with lies.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Trouble with these memes is how they mutate. This one will mutate immediately from "attack ads are all pure projection" to "legitimate criticism is all pure projection."
And yet it's a worthy meme, before it mutates. We need some simple way to distinguish the two, and build the distinction into the meme.
Maybe the distinction is whether we're criticizing an action (legitimate) or spinning fantasies about the other's motives (not legitimate).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And yet it's a worthy meme, before it mutates.
I don't think so. It's a blatant lie.
Morally, I think it's even worse than annoying attack ads which are true.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:I'm sure it is in some cases, but not as a general rule.
If it's not a one-time ad, but a general tactic from that person, I'm okay with it being taken as a general rule.
ותני כל הפוסל פסול ואינו מדבר בשבחא לעולם ואמר שמואל במומו פוסל
Quoth the Talmud (Kiddushin 70b), anyone who habitually disqualifies others is himself disqualified. And my namesake Shmuel adds that he is disqualified in precisely the way in which he disqualifies others.
(And, man, that's a lot shorter in Aramaic.) Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
I heard on NPR the other day analyst conclude attack ads are more effective with the voters than positive ads. The positive ads don't have any substance. It is usually just a guy in a at a picnic selling vague "family values" whatever that means.
While I despise attack ads at least they usually say something with content. Something you can check into. “Bob voted 2,780 times to increase taxes and hates old people, kids, and dogs too, don't forget dogs.” At least you can check his voting record to see if is true.
Now what would be truly amazing if they could run some positive ads with substance. “I have a plan to improve our education system by... check out my website to see the details.” Of course we'll almost never see that because... 1. it actually requires a plan. 2. If you actually explain this plan then you will risk alienating voters who don't agree
So it is much more effective to not commit to anything and call your opponent names.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:So it is much more effective to not commit to anything and call your opponent names.
Doesn't seem to be working out that way in the current Massachusetts gubanatorial race. Kerry Healey's been airing attack after attack, while Deval Patrick's been largely ignoring her campaign and airing ads talking about what he'd actually do as governor.
After an initial rise, Healey's poll numbers have plummeted like a stone.
Though I guess we'll see what happens next week.
(Edited to add: see also Hillary Clinton vs. Rick Lazio for the New York senate in 2000. Hillary actually had an agenda, while Rick tried to run on "I'm not Hillary Clinton." It started out as his election to lose. He got creamed.)
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Those Anti-Deval Patrick ads annoyed me. I dislike defense atternies, but there's a need for them. It's not fair to attack a man for doing his job regardless of how distasteful the job is. Not every accused criminal actually did the crime. It's more useful to explain what they'd do as the governor, the good programs they'd introduce instead of saying, "My opponent is evil and smashes innocent bunnies."
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Those Anti-Deval Patrick ads annoyed me. I dislike defense atternies, but there's a need for them. It's not fair to attack a man for doing his job regardless of how distasteful the job is. Not every accused criminal actually did the crime. It's more useful to explain what they'd do as the governor, the good programs they'd introduce instead of saying, "My opponent is evil and smashes innocent bunnies."
But won't someone think of the poor bunnies?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's more useful to explain what they'd do as the governor, the good programs they'd introduce instead of saying, "My opponent is evil and smashes innocent bunnies."
You just want to cover up all the bunny-smashing the Democrats are doing. You probably hate rainbows and unicorns, too. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Mr. Portio--I understand your concern. Yet I find its not fighting evil with lies, its fighting lies with slightly more truth. While I despise the idea of "the Ends justify the Means" the ends here are to get both sets of lies to quit.
You say it doesn't hold water all the time. You are probably right. But when you witness the ads, ask yourself it it does or doesn't. THen you decide if its a rule to use or not.
Finally, if you have a less evil tactic to fend off these ads, I am willing to change.
SC--I think I heard that bit on NPR too. What was said was, a high ranking Republican activists believes the ads work. Whether they do or don't is up to us.
Becareful with the "Voted for" claims. An example is Senator Talent in Missouri. He responded to one of my e-mails explaining why he was against any increase in the minimum wage. Six months later his ads scream how he voted "For" the minimum wage 4 times. He did. When the minimum wage was tied to ending the estate tax he voted to get it out of committee, voted to stop amendments from being added, voted to close debate, voted to approve the bill--4 votes he counts for voting for the minimum wage.
This is the lead on several of his ads.
Yet he is firmly and dedicatedly against it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
The thing is, some ads are characterized as attack ads when what they are is legitimate criticism. It is totally legitimate to tell me all the reasons why Candidate X sucks and should not get my vote. I want to know them. The real problem is when those reasons are lies, when candidate X's statements are twisted or taken out of context, and when Candidate X's record is distorted. But I can't know, then, if a negative ad is a legitimate criticism or "mudslinging"--until I do my homework. Until I look at the record for myself, and look for the quotes in their context. In this internet age, doing your homework is easier than ever before, but too many people still won't. Replying to a "negative ad" with a cute comeback doesn't substitute for doing my homework, it just makes me vote for the nicer-seeming guy. I don't know that that's an appropriate basis for my vote. If Candidate X really kicks bunnies, I think I want to know that.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)