Negative, positive or just accurate?Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 0:53 | Posted in Election, Politics, USA | 4 Comments
Tags: mccain, obama
As you can see on this clip, the US electoral campaigns are becoming negative and that goes for both sides:
I barely know the names of Whitney Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. I have no idea why they are being considered as “celebrities”. I am also not interested in getting to know it as I very much suspect that whatever it is they have done or not, it has no relevance in context of my life.
That is less than I can say about Barack Obama and John McCain. Since one of them is more than likely to become the president of the most powerful country in the World, it would be foolish not to pay attention to what they stand for, although I have never even visited that country and have no intention to do so. Which ever wins the US election, he is going to be too important and powerful to be ignored like I can safely ignore Whitney Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and get away with it.
In an ideal World campaigns would focus on the issues. They would rather seek to explain why their own candidate is a good choice than try to smear their opponents. But the World is not ideal, is it? The temptation to score cheap points can quite understandably grow too big to make the campaigns stay within decency and a civilized tone of arguing for their case.
“Political scientists and communications scholars will tell you that negative ads tend to have more information in them than positive ads,” he says.
“We see positive ads that are false or misleading, too.”
Maybe there is something in that statement. If a negative message is accurate and truthful, it should certainly be told. That would be less harmful than delivering a positive message about the own candidate on false prerequisites.
The hard part, of course, is to determin which message you can trust, be it positive or negative. Which is why it always pays out to have a critical attitude towards anything you read or hear about.