"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
The media's counterproductive focus on negative campaigning
It's getting awfully hard to pick up a newspaper or turn on the television without seeing a news report about the presidential campaign turning negative. It often seems the media consider the tone of the campaign more important than the collapsing economy, the war, our continued failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and the Bush administration's apparent disdain for the Constitution -- combined.
Before we go any further, let me be clear: I'm not saying that negative campaigning isn't as bad as the media makes it out to be.
I'm saying negative campaigning is essential to American democracy.
See, for voters to make good decisions, they have to have good information. And, unfortunately, candidates aren't in the habit of telling voters things they've done (or plan to do) that are unpopular, or of running ads about the flaws in their own proposals. And since voters need to know the candidates' weaknesses as well as their strengths, and the disadvantages to their proposals, they need somebody to talk about those things.
Oh, sure, we could rely on the media to do that. How have they been doing lately? Anybody think they did a good job of assessing the candidates' relative weaknesses in 2000? Of poking holes in the Bush administration's tragically flawed arguments for the Iraq war? Of putting down the doughnuts and barbecued ribs long enough to pin John McCain down on how long he's willing to keep fighting in Iraq, what, exactly, he plans on doing to Social Security, how he would pay for his tax cuts and wars, or how much you have to make in order for him to consider you "rich"?
Anyone who thinks we can rely on the media to tell us what the candidates don't want us to know should head over to the Swampland blog, where Time reporter Michael Scherer insists that it is unfair to bring up John McCain's lengthy history of voting and speaking in favor of Social Security privatization. Scherer says we should instead simply look at the position statements on McCain's campaign Web page (statements that actually don't provide any reason to think that McCain no longer supports privatization, though Scherer seems to think they do. See my posts on Media Matters' new blog, County Fair, for further explanation.)
So, we need candidates to engage in negative campaigning -- that is, in criticizing their opponents' positions, experience, and previous performance. That's far different from dishonest campaigning. Or from tactics that cross the line from "negative" to downright sleazy. Those tactics should be called out by the news media, and frequently. But the media's reflexive focus on simply "negative" campaigning is unnecessary and often counterproductive.
It is unnecessary because the question of whether a candidate or campaign is "too negative" is a visceral question, not a logical one. Voters don't need reporters to try to measure negativity for them or to keep reminding them of it. If something is too negative for them, voters will have a visceral reaction against it; if not, they won't. Either way, they are perfectly capable of coming to that conclusion on their own. (With the important exception that if a campaign is running a viciously negative below-the-radar campaign, such as a whispering campaign like the one George W. Bush waged against John McCain in 2000, voters can benefit from the media shining a light on those tactics.)
What voters can't easily do on their own is assess whether ads are true, false, or somewhere in between. That's where the media can be useful. They have the resources -- and, ideally, some expertise -- to assess the validity of claims made in campaign ads. That's how reporters can actually be useful -- by doing what the voters can't do for themselves, and doing it well.
Unfortunately, the news media often lump true criticism together with dishonest or sleazy criticism, as though all negative campaigning is equal, and equally bad. This week, a study concluded that a larger percentage of Barack Obama's ads since the political conventions have been "negative," bringing another round of news reports that drew false equivalence between very different tactics.
The Wisconsin Advertising Project looked at a single week's worth of ads in determining that 56 percent of McCain ads and 77 percent of Obama ads were "negative." Aside from the dangers in drawing conclusions from such a small sample of campaign ads, the findings are of limited value given that the project made no effort to assess the veracity or fairness of the ads in question. In fact, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, the study counted any ad that so much as mentioned the opponent's name as "negative."
I suppose it might be mildly interesting to know that 56 percent of John McCain's ads mention Barack Obama, or that 77 percent of Obama's ads mention McCain. But it doesn't really tell us anything useful. How did they mention each other? Did the ads criticize policy positions or personality? Were they honest? The answers to those questions are essential to any meaningful assessment of the candidates' campaign tactics. (If you do find the project's findings compelling, you should keep in mind that in July, based on a much larger sample, the project found that more of McCain's ads were negative.)
Despite the study's failure to even attempt to assess the validity of the ads it declared "negative," several news organizations hyped the findings. Worse, some suggested the finding that more of Obama's ads have been negative undermines the recent conclusions of many impartial observers that the McCain campaign ads have been more dishonest than those of the Obama campaign.
The New York Post, for example, reported that the results of the study "clash with recent media coverage accusing McCain of distorting Obama's record in ads." Nonsense. That's like saying that the fact that this is September clashes with the fact that it is Friday.
On Hardball, MSNBC's Chris Matthews also touted the study:
The McCain camp's been getting a lot of attention for some recent hard-hitting ads. In fact, the Wisconsin Advertising Project, a group that studies politics ads nationwide, deems that 56 percent of the ads aired by the McCain campaign last week were negative. That's 56 percent of McCain's ads, negative.
But here's a number that may surprise you. How many of Obama's ads in that same time period last week were negative? Seventy-seven percent -- an indication, perhaps, that Obama intends to come out swinging -- or these are the next couple months. He's going to be doing it. Nearly four out of five ads Obama aired last week were negative -- tonight's "Big Number."
But the more significant "attention" McCain has been getting has not been for negative ads -- it has been for false ads. Matthews disappears that criticism, suggesting that the criticism of McCain has been for negativity rather than dishonesty.
On Race to the White House, Matthews' colleague David Gregory said, "Obama says he wants a new kind of politics. Why is he running more negative ads than Senator McCain?" Later, Gregory played an Obama ad accusing McCain of dishonest attack ads -- but look at how Gregory characterized the Obama ad:
GREGORY: That is a new campaign ad from the Obama campaign. It is out this week, taking a swipe at John McCain for his negative ads. Take a look at this, a new study from the Wisconsin Advertising Project says that it is Obama slinging the most mud on TV; 77 percent of Obama's ads after the GOP convention were negative, compared to 56 percent of McCain's.
No. Obama's ad took a "swipe" at McCain for dishonest ads, not merely for negative ads. By changing Obama's criticism, Gregory was able to use the Wisconsin study to paint him as a hypocrite. And note the phrasing Gregory used to describe the study's findings -- the loaded phrase "it is Obama slinging the most mud on TV." Remember, the study made no effort whatsoever to assess the content of the ads; it simply counted as negative any mention of the opponent's name. On that flimsy basis, Gregory accuses Obama of "slinging the most mud" -- even as the consensus among neutral observers has been that McCain is leveling more false attacks.
Lumping all negative statements together as "slinging mud," without differentiating between true claims and false (or fair and unfair) doesn't inform viewers; it is a false equivalence that serves only to advantage truly dishonorable attacks by making them appear no worse than run-of-the-mill factual criticism. It plays into the hands of liars and smear merchants. And it penalizes honest and fair criticisms -- though such criticisms are essential to the voters' ability to make informed decisions.
I can understand how an uneducated American might not be aware of the meaning of "negative ad", but no one in the media should be confused by that phrase. They should all understand it. How is it that some don't?
"It plays into the hands of liars and smear merchants. And it penalizes honest and fair criticisms -- though such criticisms are essential to the voters' ability to make informed decisions. "
And that boys and girls sums up perfectly the rightwing corporate owned media and the powers that be that have zero interest in We the Peoples interests, let alone our right to vote!!
I weep for our country! That it's being destroyed so handily by these greedy, sleezy, slimy bastards breaks my heart!!
The laziness of the MSM in picking up on any report that favors the Flip-Flop Express is legion. It's only a numbers game to them, what maroons.
It's like the media sees what Foser sees -- that average citizens aren't well equipped to assess the truth or falsehood of an ad -- and concludes that we must be too stupid to be informed about it, rather than that they should report on it.
If the media is so in the tank for JSM, why are they not reporting the following?
While Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has produced a television ad criticizing Sen. John McCain’s position on equal pay for women and pointing out that women in America are paid only 77 cents on the dollar compared to men, Obama pays his own female Senate staffers, on average, only 78 percent of what he pays male staffers.
Women on McCain’s staff, meanwhile, earn 24 percent more on average than women on Obama’s Senate staff. McCain also pays his female Senate staff members a higher average salary than his male Senate staff members.
Women occupy seven of the top 10 highest-paid positions on McCain’s staff, and five of the top 10 highest-paid positions on Obama’s staff.
The numbers come from the most recent Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which includes the salaries of every member of each U.S. senator’s staff during the period of Oct. 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008.
I note you posted a link substantiating this claim.
Oh, wait, no you didn't.
Report of the Secretary of the Senate
You've never seen it, yet you want us to think you did. The actions of a "dishonest punk".
This is a dead issue until someone sees it.
I did my own research and found really the info in legistorm.com. The exact period cited in the allegation listed from top paid down. Try to find any evidence at all that Obama descriminates. You will not find any here.
http://www.legistorm.com/member/76/Sen_Barack_Obama/48/salary/desc.html
http://www.legistorm.com/member/69/Sen_John_McCain/48/salary/desc.html
There is absolutely no indication in the data that Obama descriminates against women whether within his own staff OR even comapared to McCain at all.
CNSNews.com reported the methodology:
Methodology
The information for the CNSNews.com analysis was taken from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate that covered the six month period ending March 31.
As was the case with the previous story published in April, CNSNews.com sent its analysis of the Secretary of the Senate’s payroll data to both the Obama and McCain Senate offices. McCain Senate spokesman Robert Fischer and Obama Senate spokesman Michael Ortiz confirmed the accuracy of the information, but did not comment on the gender pay comparisons between their offices.
Because the Report of the Secretary of the Senate only covers half a year, the salaries listed for those six months were simply multiplied by two to determine the annual salary. To arrive at the annual salary for employees who only worked for part of the six months, CNSNews.com divided the total amount they were paid by the number of days they were employed then multiplied that number by 365.
Correction: In an initial posting of this story, it said that that the average annual male salary in Sen. Barack Obama's office was $10,472 more than the average annual female salary, in fact the average annual male salary in Obama's office was $12,472 more than the average annual female salary.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=35972
This method is fundamentally flawed because they averaged all of the salaries including low level interns and analyzed it treating all of the data points equally. You can only average it out if they are all for the same position. If you want to prove that Obama descriminates, you have to prove that he systematically pays women in his staff less for the same position and compare it to other salaries (men and women) at the same position.
To illustrate, McCain's top staff member is Legislative Director who is a woman who made $65 grand in 6 months. Obama's top staff member is Legislative Director who is a man who made $60 grand in the same period.
McCain's #2 (Office Manager) is also a woman made $47,600. Obama's #2 (Administrative Manager) made $50,500.
So far, just the fact that Obama's Legislative Director is a man, the average salary for women in Obama's staff does not include the top job. In McCain's average salary for women, it does. Obama would have to pay his #2 about $6 grand more to keep up with McCain's average even though McCain's #2 made almost $3 grand less.
So Oscar comes here, crowing about some *news* that Media Matters isn't covering.
1. He knows that they aren't a news source, so why is he asking why Media Matters isn't covering it? Because it's the only way he can fraudulently attempt to make a link between this story and Media Matters, and pretend that it's relevant. That makes him dishonest.
2. Why isn't the MSM commenting on it? Because it's a fraudulent story. There was no attempt to compare apples to apples, so it's a wholly invalid comparison. Not only is the comparison invalid, but it gets worse - it shows a gross misunderstanding of what the whole issue of unequal pay is all about! It shows a purposely lack of understanding - it's not rocket science, yet they totally don't get that it's equivalent pay for equivalent job performance, seniority and experience that's still not happening.
3. Oscar doesn't provide a link, and then, when challenged, pretends that it came from the Secretary of the US Senate. It didn't. It came from a non-trustworthy rightie source. That makes Oscar a punk.
4. When he's proven wrong, and dishonest, and untrustworthy, he disappears. That makes him a dishonest punk.
5. It also serves as a distraction for the point of Jamison Foser - that the media has not done its job in fairly portraying the candidates. That's their job. I can't tell you the number of times I've yelled at the TV in the past few months when they've still been making the false equivalency arguments about 'everyone does it' that they pulled so often during the Kerry-Bush campaign. Republicans and Democrats are not equivalent. The media hasn't given Obama the same passes they've given McCain. They haven't publicized the facts about McCain as much as they've publicized the smears of Obama!
6. Negative campaigning? There are lots of bad things to say about McCain right after he's first said something untrue and bad about Obama! It's McCain's fault that Obama says bad things about him. If he had stuck to his maverick roots, instead of moving to the right, and discarding his previously held positions, he'd deserve respect. He hasn;t and he doesn't.
Do you know what the "equal pay for women" legislation states and why your post has no relevance to it?
Equal pay for equal work. The revealing thing is that apparently BHO doesn't think the female member of the staff are working as hard as the males (and there are less of them than on JSMs staff) I realize the post has no relevance because it casts a bad light on your candidate (plus the fact the MM has nt caught up with it yet, apparently)
"The revealing thing is that apparently BHO doesn't think the female member of the staff are working as hard as the males"
You just pulled this out of your ass.
This is how I see it. Obama is a person who believes in equal pay for equal work so some of the female staffer jobs are not comparable to the male staffer jobs. On the other hand, McCain is a person who doesn't believe in equal pay for equal work so those female staffers might be getting underpaid for slaving over him.
Good try, Loony. Now if the figures were the other way around, how would you see it? And try to be honest with your answer.
It would not have been brought up unless McCain was paying women less than men for comparable job descriptions. Why do you think legistorm and CNSNews made no mention of job description? Simple answer: it would have undermined the false perception they are trying to convey. Mindless drones (their target audience) eat this stuff up though.
Or BHO just doesn't see the necessity of promoting women on his staff to equal pay positions? Hummmmmmm, either way, it don't look good, but after all "you can't put lipstick on a pig".
If a position on his staff is already filled, why would he need to promote anyone, let alone a woman for that position?
What a dishonest punk Oscar continues to be.
The report about women making 77 cents on the dollar for equal work means exactly that.
The comparison by the CNS, an incredibly biased source (any wonder why Oscar never linked to the source, and instead dishonestly claimed that the numbers came directly from the Secretary of the US Senate?), didn't compare apples to apples. Not everyone that works in Obama's office has an equivalent position and equivalent experience, and so comparing earnings in that way is incredibly dishonest and deceitful and misleading!!!
So, why is the MSM not reporting something that's not news, isn't a statistically relevant or accurate study and is only a smear of Obama? Gosh, I wonder why they aren't covering that!
Looking at any one employer and comparing him to another employer, instead of looking at a statisically significant sampling of employers, is dishonest.
Experts in this field need to look at this. Not CNS. The link that *doesn't* substantiate this claim comes from the Cybercast News Service (used to be Christian News Service), not from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate. Dishonest hack.
My gawd, Blondie visits other websites!!!!!! Did you check the Secretary of the Senate Report? Nah, it might reveal something you don't want to see or know. Your dark roots are beginning to show, BB.
It wasn't the Secretary of the Senate that did this comparison, however. It was CNS, a rightwing hack news source.
What their comparison revealed was not sorted based upon the job responsibilities that the individuals had. Without that info, it's worthless. The pay disparity is based upon equal or equivalent job responsibilities, taking seniority, experience and job tenure into account. The CNS report did none of that.
It's not a good thing to be a dishonest punk, yet you apparently delight in it. Too bad for you.
And, oh, it looks like I've been promoted from "smear" merchant to "dishonest hack"!!!!!! I am looking for renumeration inline with the promotion, dark roots.
Since the most devastating terrorist attack on the US in history happened on the Republican's watch due to their ineptness and inability to govern, and now over 7 years later STILL absolutely nothing has been done to get the perpetrator, and STILL the national media refuses to EVER talk about the monumental incompetence and weakeness of the GOP and the Bush administration in not getting Bin Laden, how could that same media EVER be called "liberal"?
I'm sure whatever rightwingers tell themselves to ignore that reality that Bin Laden attacked America and faced no reprisal, comeuppance, or punishment bares no relevationship to the fact -- if we had not responded to Pearl Harbor the way the Bush administration has refused to respond to 9.11 this would currently be Decemeber 1948! For the record, that means the rightwing's favorite mascot, Osama Bin Laden, is 100% victorious in his attack on the USA thanks to the Republican Party!
There's been no "liberal media" since Nixon's crimes were exposed. It's been insanely corporate and rightwing ever since!
On the last evening of the primary season Tim Russett warned the Media not to fall into this trap. He implied the media failed in the last presidential cycle and become unwitting pawns of the campaigns. You guys should try to find that clip it would be instructive for all.
Change We Need Leadership We Can Trust
Snoopy...also OT, but here is the news video of the 29 year old RNC guy who was ripped off of the jewelry, which he also said included a $1,000 purse or wallet, and cash...originally $120,000 claimed.....but look what he was wearing the day of the convention in an interview.....not a guy who wears a $1,000 Prada belt and expensive jewelry is he?
AMAZING he thinks we should bomb the hell out of Iran, plant a flag and take their oil and resources. What a grabd example of a RNC delgate!
http://www.linktv.org/video/2931
speaking of bin laden, i was listening to howard stern on tuesday and he had a comedian on, nick dipaolo, who repeated all the usual right wing fantasies, saying clinton never responded to either the africa embassy bombings or the uss cole. did i dream it, or did not clinton respond to the embassy bombings with cruise missiles aimed at bin laden's camp, and a lot of republicans in congress said he was trying to divert attention from monica? or the fact that the cole happened two months before clinton left office, and no one was positive who did it until bush took office. and bush's response was....nothing? i still don't understand why people cannot take bush at his own words, which he said to bob woodward. bush said that, pre 9-11, he was "not on point" about bin laden. "not on point". that's pretty clear.
The word "negative" isn't the right word to use. The media loves false dichotomies....how about a real one like true and false? I have seen several "reports" about "negative" campagining and it always ends up in an equivalency of the fact and fiction. Instead of positive and negative, how about we describe political ads in terms of their "shloopiness". McCain ran more shloopy ads than Obama...that will help the public.
If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're "exotic, different."
Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers -- a quintessential American story.
If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track -- you're a maverick.
Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
Attend five different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.
If you spend three years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a constitutional law professor, spend eight years as a state senator representing a district with more than 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
If your total resume is: local weather girl, four years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with fewer than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.
If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising two beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.
If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.
If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society
If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.
If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner-city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.
If your husband is nicknamed "First Dude," with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.
OK, much clearer now.
it also looks like palin will be skipping the sunday talk shows again. her next "interview" is with katie couric on the 29th. she's apparently a fearless pit bull, except when it comes to answering questions. maybe someone might ask why the mccain campaign is still running ads with the bridge to nowhere propaganda. i'm sure they're hoping that they can keep her away from the press, because they know she will reveal how clueless she is, not to mention the reality of her record vs. the false rhetoric. maybe she's planning to appoint one of her high school classmates as secretary of state.
no appearances for palin yesterday. now, they want to put all kinds of conditions on her debate with biden. yet she's "ready" to be president, when she can't even handle the press.
Mr. Hebert,
Foser is correct. The average citizen isn't well equipped to assess the truth of an ad.
Look at the runup to the Iraq War. Polls showed that most citizens were ill-informed. They believed that Iraq was behind 9/11, and/or that Saddam had active WMD programs.
That doesn't mean that the average citizen is stupid. It means that s/he doesn't have the time or resources to know what's factual, and what's a twist of the truth or an outright lie.
We're all experts on something (I, myself, am an expert on the contents of my sock drawer). None of us can be an expert on everything. So we rely on experts to give us info and advice. Our doctor checks out health and gives us his/her diagnosis. Our lawyer tells us how best to work our way through the maze of restraining orders that vindictive people have pushed forward against us, through no fault of our own; we just want to talk to these celebrities, and maybe then they'll fall in love with us. Why can't those durned judges just understand that?
Oh. Sorry. Got off on a tangent there. Never mind.
The point is, when it comes to the news, we can't all be reporters. We can't be experts on economics, the law, national security, and all the myriad of issues that come to play in a presidential campaign. (The candidates themselves aren't experts on everything; that's why they meet with advisers!) So we need the press to assess the truth of what the candidates say. We need reporters to look into the candidates' past and highlight the salient features of their resumes, which should give some insight into their future.
It's not elitist to expect the public to rely on the media to give them the facts. It's not patronizing to say that people need some guidance as they assess the candidates. It's simple recognition of the nature of the human beast. We are a social organism. Rather than apologizing for that, we should celebrate.
And as an essential part of our social structure, the news media should do its job, which is reporting facts and focusing on reality—rather than talking trivia about personalities and clothing and reading candidates' minds and rumor-mongering and making shet up.
I agree with every statement but that one. I don't celebrate. If someone had the ability to offer me fluency in Russian or expertise in medeviel Japanese history, to be effortlessly implanted into my brain, I would accept. As it is, I have neither, and acquiring them is a very low priority to me. Few of us with IQ's below 200 are experts in everything so, yes, we rely on the news to keep us enlightened. That is actually one of the flaws in the "fourth estate". When they get it wrong, experts should call them on it, but too many are in the pay of political partisans.
Would you ask your lawyer not to go "negative" in court?
This may be a fantasy. It's possible Bin Laden is already dead--he would be on dialisys if he were alive. There is credible evidence the "confession video" and various missives have been faked (I'm not saying they necessarily were, just credible evidence). There is lots of evidence OBL has a symbiotic relationship with US intelligence. So lambasting the Bush administration for failing to "kill or capture" Bin Laden is at best naive. It's a transparent effort for liberals to sound "tough". We and the media should not be talking about feigned toughness, only reality (or plausible hypotheses based thereon).
it's quite possible that he is dead. but if we recognize the talk of the bush administration, that he wanted bin laden dead or alive, bush's failure to deliver on either becomes an issue. it's pretty well accepted that we blew a chance to get him at tora bora in the initial phase of the afghanistan invasion.
I recall that it was not too long ago( a matter of just a few weeks) that Obama was often the target of critical punditry for _not_ going negative... questioning his ability to be a tough campaigner, a strong leader.
And it seems to me that McCain has not really been seriously criticized for negative campaigning... for this would lead focusing on his bizarre association with The Architect: Karl Rove.