SHARE THIS SHOW:

RECENTLY ON TOL:

TOL Our Town

TAGS:

Political Ads

AIR DATE: Wednesday, October 15th 2008

Download the mp3 for this show.

Do they impact the way you vote?

Turn on the television today and the one thing you're almost guaranteed to see is a campaign ad. There's Republican senator Gordon Smith working "across party lines" with Democratic senator Ron Wyden.

And, in response, Senator Wyden telling people the ads will be over soon and, instead, to support Smith's Democratic opponent, Jeff Merkley.

Or Jeff Merkley eating a hot dog. Or Gordon Smith's campaign being called "sleazy and broken."

And that's just a smattering of the senate ads (which, according to political observer Jeff Mapes of the Oregonian, were a big topic of discussion at last night's debate in Medford). Of course there are plenty of ad buys for local races, and you may have heard that Obama and McCain have been putting out a few spots as well. Attack ads, negative ads, misleading facts and figures -- they're all a part of the visual wallpaper of an election season.

But how successful are they? What message do they send? What impact do campaign ads have on who you vote for? Do you pay attention to them? Or switch channels? And what about the bevy of ads on the internet? Do you check them out -- or surf on?

Although I live in Washington and can't vote in the Oregon Senate race, I have to say that the ads I've seen over the last few months make me want to say "a plague on both their houses." I would probably hold my nose and vote for Merkley, based on Smith's record, but I wouldn't be happy about it.

I lived in the UK for a few years, and I often wish we had their approach to campaign advertising. There, each party is allocated a certain amount of time (perhaps 5 minutes) to state their case during the election. There is a scheduled time listed, so that people know when it is on, all the major parties get the same amount of time, and that is it. There's no paid campaign advertising and no constant barrage of political messages.

Of course, UK elections are only six weeks long...an innovation I wouldn't mind seeing here after the last two years of presidential campaigning!

Rachaelvr — Wed Oct. 15th 11:59a.m.

My idea of a good leader is someone who is rational, thoughtful, considering of all sides, and above smear attacks. It's someone who is confident in their own abilities and doesn't need to succumb to slinging mud with an opponent. I was completely smitten with Obama when I heard him speak at the Waterfront Park: I think he embodies all of the above characteristics. However, my approval of him is waning as I see him playing the same games that every politician becomes enmeshed in, and that goes for Merkley and Smith as well. I suspect that citizens are driving the smear craze, either unconsciously or purposefully, but I so hope that our politicians hear the few of us who say, "enough already, I just want you to be you, to tell me about your own policies, and to leave the other guy alone." Ads and biased claims do nothing to sway me one way or another, it just disheartens me.

ktkatekate — Wed Oct. 15th 12:16p.m.

Negative political ads seem to have a scorched earth effect... they may help a politician win an election in the short term, but they also serve to further disgust and disengage voters from the political process in the long term. Which is a shame. Government is exactly as good and effective as the electorate chooses to make it, and that demands that we stay informed and involved.

GarrettD — Wed Oct. 15th 12:17p.m.

Politicians who delve into negative ads don't focus on the problems they are being hired to solve. In other words, if politicians have something positive to contribute, they don't spend the bulk of their time bashing their opponents' character or political records.

trurl9 — Wed Oct. 15th 1:20p.m.

Emily mentioned ads in videogames. If you'd like to take a gander at some of them, here's a PDF slideshow:
[url]http://www.politico.com/static/PPM106_obamascreenshots.html[/url]

GarrettD — Wed Oct. 15th 12:20p.m.

I agree that a shorter campaign would be a relief and I like the idea of equalizing on air time, although I don't know how you would control third party ads. The thing that bugs me most is the massive simplification of issues that goes on and then blaming one candidate for the whole thing (Gordon Smith's war... Jeff Merkley's furniture... etc)

But, in the end, the ads annoy me without affecting how I vote. At most they make clear to me who is running in any particular race. I take voting seriously, but I admit that I don't do my serious research until I get my ballot. I figure that by then anything relevant that was going to come out has come out.

katied — Wed Oct. 15th 12:23p.m.

The Oregon political ad that most impressed me recently was a woman who came on and said that she hadn't been elected even though she was the only one running for her position and then said, "Didn't find me on your ballot? I'm right here. Don't give up." Unfortunately, I cannot remember her name at the moment. However, I previously have not voted on positions with only one person running and didn't realize that those persons running unopposed might not be elected due to the 50% rule. I am impressed by this woman's attempt to educate voters and will vote now when there is only one option! I would like to see more political commercials like this.

pdxlibrarian — Wed Oct. 15th 12:24p.m.

You ask what political ads offend or amuse me.... Not to be a suck-up or anything, but I find that most advertisements are non-sensical, non-rational and pander to the lowest common denominator in consumers. Consequently, my TV rarely if ever leaves channel 10. I have not had to endure a single offensive or misleading political advertisement -- or indeed, any ads at all -- in quite some time. Instead, I get the information I need to make my political decisions, without a bunch of misleading half-truths from political parties or monied special interest groups. If viewers find political ads objectionable, they should re-examine their media choices.

Jim Long
Sellwood

jimlong — Wed Oct. 15th 12:32p.m.

In the third segment -- after our next break -- we're going to talk about online ads. Have you seen any ads on the internet that really struck you? Perhaps McCain's "The One" or Obama supporters' "Yes We can"?

David Miller — Wed Oct. 15th 12:41p.m.

I have enjoyed the Obama feel-good videos where members from the Cult of Personality share sound bites with We The Bleating Unwashed Sleeping Sheep. But feel-good words and utterances don't mean much. We've got real problems to fix. Action counts. At least Obama attempts to keep his focus on what we need to do as a country. Because McCain is ineffective and thoughtless, I drown his drone.

trurl9 — Wed Oct. 15th 12:55p.m.

I don't watch t.v. but the ads still get through my defenses. Thanks TOL! Where's my spray-on Teflon? Where's my body condom? Run!!!

Negative ads galvanize my resolve against the opposition. Negative ads are offensive. Candidates fail to tell us what they stand for as they focus too much on what their opponent DOES NOT stand for.

The current political practices must change for the positive. Campaign season should be three months. Campaigns should cost no more than $_____ (set your reasonable amount here.) Candidates should discuss issues they will pursue for the benefit of We The Sheep. Candidates must state who their constituencies are and who they will actually serve.

Underneath all this is the pervasive ickyness that We The Sheep have become the toilet paper of politicians. Cynical I realize, but the results speak loudly.

The blame lies with We The Sheep for accepting and being manipulated by negative, thoughtless, stupid, arrogant, effete, vapid, ineffectual, sneaky, disingenuous, politicians. We don't get what we pay for. We accept this negative and misleading political advertising. Shame on us.

How is this for a negative ad?

trurl9 — Wed Oct. 15th 12:48p.m.

The Smith TV ad that interests me the most is the one where he claims he cares about Central and Eastern Oregon and implies that Merkley only cares about and gets support from Portland and the northern Willamette Valley communities. Questions: 1. Does Smith only broadcast this TV ad in Central and Eastern Oregon?; 2. Does splitting the electorate this way actually work to Smith's advantage?; and 3. Isn't Smith supposed to represent all of Oregon?

bendborn — Wed Oct. 15th 12:52p.m.

I abhor political ads for a few reasons. First the majority are negative and misrepresenting. They may address a truth but they fail to put it in context. Secondly I want to hear about the issues. Instead the trend is to attempt to sway (probably the uneducated) my vote by presenting the negative ads. Lastly, in my opinion, they show poor form. I will walk away from my favorite show to not listen to a political add. I much prefer the pamphlets, getting to the issues and making an informed opinion.

Dynette — Wed Oct. 15th 12:54p.m.

my position: no advertising, no money, open the public ariwaves to full exposure of every candidate and issue - no money, no money, no money - no campaign funds, no fundrasing, no strings - sorry advertising industry, the pary's over

blogdog — Wed Oct. 15th 1p.m.

It just looks like campaigns have become a new business. They have gone on for what, eighteen to twenty months? And where does all that ad money go?

I suggest that the public ought to reserve part of the public airwaves for political campaigns and limit campaigns to just a few months.

Money has corrupted the process and ought to be limited.

Limit the money and the length of campaigns and get the government back to doing the peoples business instead of doing the businesses' business.

Tom D Ford — Wed Oct. 15th 1:05p.m.

In case you were curious, here's Marcus vs HP Deskjet.

David Miller — Wed Oct. 15th 1:12p.m.

Marcus is a bane to productivity. Wonder if the Vice President has hired Marcus to handle some "troublesome documentation"? Very funny.

trurl9 — Wed Oct. 15th 1:24p.m.

Comments are now closed.