by Tom Parsons

Created on: October 25, 2010

This is one voter who is not swayed at all by the political ads that clutter the airwaves just before an election, especially if those ads are paid for by a political action group such as MoveOn.org or parties other than the candidates themselves.

Television is certainly an attractive option for a politician running for office. The cost is high, but so is the exposure. Literally millions of voters will be exposed to the ad in a relatively short period of time. But those ads very often leave a bad taste in the mouths of viewers who usually find the ads annoying, negative and dishonest.

All too often, the ads focus on the shortcomings of the opponent. Although sources for the negative information are included, usually in difficult-to-read tiny print at the bottom or corner of the screen, these sources are sometimes obscure and not easily verifiable. These ads often misrepresent a comment made by the opponent, taking it out of context and editing it to suit the advertiser's own purposes.

A tactic commonly used in these ads is to include an unflattering photograph of the opponent while the narrator drones on about his many sins. In the ads which aired prior to the fall, 2010 election, ads for Republican candidates often included photos of the Democratic opponent with President Barack Obama. Since the President's popularity was at a low point at that time, the inference was that the opponent was out of step with the American people as the President was perceived to be. Democratic candidates seemed to distance themselves from the President, not mentioning his name in their ads for the same reason.

Perhaps one of the problems with these ads is that advertising agencies are often hired to create the ads. Advertising people are very creative, but they are not always truthful in the ads they create. Their purpose is not to tell the truth; their purpose is to make the advertiser who is paying the bills look good. The tactic of choice in this process is to make the opponent look as bad as possible, twisting his words, identifying him with unpopular groups and concepts. It is the negativism of these ads which most voters find offensive.

If politicians demanded ads be created that are positive and truthful, the vast amounts of money spent on such ads might be more justifiable. An ad in which a candidate simply stood in front of the camera and told the viewers what he or she would do if elected would be a refreshing change from the slander and libel current ads splash across our TV screens. Such an honest ad might just have the ability to sway this voter.

Learn more about this author, Tom Parsons.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.