Plenty of evidence, sure, somewhere, but not in this piece. Not a stat, not a study, not a “Dr. X from Y research group says ads are effective because…” And certainly no input from man-on-the-street voter Z on how effective it is on their ballot choice. The efficacy of negative campaigning might be a too-obvious point to report out, true—we probably don’t need another generic quote from a Larry Sabato-type to support the claim—but the less-often asserted idea that negative campaigns are particularly effective against newer candidates is not so obvious as to be left to hang in the same fashion. Is there some research or an expert to quote as to why? I assume it’s because newer candidates are blanker canvasses, more easily able to be defined by an opposition campaign. But I’m really just guessing, much as other readers are expected to at this point in the piece.
There are some interesting insights into the nature of negative ads in Zeleny’s report—he’s a solid reporter, as knowledgeable as anyone on his beat—and it works as a survey of what’s being said in several congressional races across the country, and to some extent why it’s being said. But it all feels a little too much like a campaign ad in the end—a bunch of promises, not much delivery.
I noticed that both the article on Democratic negative ads and the Rove story for Republicans was light on facts and reasons for why what is said is necessary to be done. My partial conclusion was that very little has been said by either party unless one has seen the ads per se. The Fiorina ones bashing Boxer came this morning and the quote chosen--as is expected--was out of context. Boxer had been cut off by a lesser Congress member shortly after she took up the gavel to begin a discussion and she was reminding that member that he was no longer the head of the committee and she was--therefore she was to be addressed properly. Fiorina in that same situation would most likely have been harsher. She usually is. That's also what got her into trouble ethically while she was at Hewlitt Packard. Many of Whitman's against Brown are out of time and context also. I usually mute most ads on tv so I don't hear them repeatedly. But other than Brown's and Boxer's in CA I have seen very few ads for Democrats until this morning. If that's the situation in NYC or the East Coast it may answer why neither of these articles had many tests to prove or disprove. Check the last few pages of the Times in the days and weeks to come and hopefully. we'll see them analyzed better with proof.
#1 Posted by Patricia Wilson, CJR on Mon 27 Sep 2010 at 05:52 PM