Voters' Love-Hate Relationship with Negative Ads Perpetuates Use

Mudslinging may seem dirty, but it works.

“Negative ads are continually used because it works,” said Scott Huffmon, founder of the Social & Behavioral Research Lab at Winthrop University.  “America hates negative ads.  America responds to negative ads.”

Politicians often seek an advantage by referring to their opponents’ negative aspects rather than highlighting the positive attributes of their own campaign.  The technique of using attack ads has become commonplace during political elections.

According to Huffmon, negative ads have the ability to rally supporters of a particular candidate or dissuade undecided voters from supporting their opponent, leaving an impression on every viewer.

“People say it’s distasteful, it’s horrible, but in the end, from what’s called the impression driven model of public opinion, people often don’t remember specifics,” said Huffmon.  “They just remember the impression that’s left, and after a while of hearing ‘this person’s a dirt bag’ they have a bad impression of them even if they’re not exactly sure why.”

Attack ads are continuously used not only because they leave an impact on viewers, but also due to politicians being within legal rights to distribute them.  Even though many attack ads become controversial, legally TV stations can’t deny them.

For instance, Democratic incumbent Mark Pryor sponsored an ad, “Emergency Response,” that claims his challenger, Republican Tom Cotton, voted against preparing America for pandemics like Ebola.  Cotton is also accused of choosing tax cuts for billionaires over Arkansas and choosing to not to protect families.

According to “The Law of Publication Communication” by Kent Middleton and William Lee,  “a broadcast station has no control over the content of programming aired by political candidates.” 

The book continues to say the Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934 prohibits the censorship of candidates from broadcasters regardless of whether “their statements are racist, vulgar or defamatory.”

Although the Federal Communications Commission protects politicians from broadcasters they are not exempt from others taking legal action against their attack ads.

While plaintiffs have the ability to sue they must prove the ad to be false in order to win their case.

However, according to Nathaniel Frederick, assistant professor of mass communication at Winthrop University, it is challenging for plaintiffs to win a libel case.

“It’s difficult to sue because the idea is that political campaigns are a part of a robust deliberation, discussion of issues or character of the other person,” said Frederick.  “That type of speech can get heated.  Politicians have willingly put themselves in the spotlight and that spotlight is only increased during an election.  It seems difficult for a politician to win a libel suit.”

Negative ads continue to be aired even though they are often found to not be truthful or they contain half-truths.

“Listened,” an ad released by Cotton, accuses President Obama of hijacking the farm bill and making it a food stamp bill.  However, according to Arthur Delaney of the Huffington Post, food stamps have been apart of the farm bill for decades as a logrolling arrangement between rural and urban lawmakers.  Rural Republicans get farm subsidies and city Democrats receive food stamps for their constituents.

It’s not required for ads of this nature to be retracted and politicians aren’t held accountable if their ads contain falsities.

“It may seem deceptive, but it’s still protected because of free speech,” said Frederick.  “Those lies may mislead voters, but in the context of democracy and free press the press is supposed to serve as a watch dog of government officials, to do the work to uncover who is lying.”

While Politicians promote their own negative ads during election campaigns there are also negative ads that aren’t sponsored or approved by politicians.

For instance, an ad by Crossroads GPS, a nonprofit corporation, attacks Pryor’s dedication to his senior citizen constituents. Their ad “Double Standards” accuses Pryor of wanting to “overhaul” social security by increasing the retirement age, and trying to reward illegal immigrants by giving them social security.

According to Frederick, politicians are not associated with negative ads that are published by independent organizations and PACs. This protects politicians from possible backlash of a negative ad that isn’t sponsored by them and saves them money.

It is estimated that at the end of the midterm elections roughly $4 billion will have been spent on mainly TV advertisements. 

The U.S. Senate race in Arkansas has topped the $20 million mark in TV ads and, according to Peter Urban of Arkansas News, this Senate race ranks seventh nationally in ad spending.

The current spending rates for political TV ads, coupled with the effectiveness of negative ads, may validate that negative ads could continue to prevail as a main campaign tactic for many elections to come.

Winthrop Speak of the Times: 50 Years of Integration

A panel of integration forerunners spoke to the Winthrop community about their experiences as African American students and staff during the height of racial tension 50 years ago.

            In 1964, Winthrop University admitted Dr. Cynthia Roddey and Delores Johnson Hurt as the first black graduate and undergraduate students. Six years later, the first black librarians, Ellen Owens and Dorothy Barber, were hired and began their 44-year career at Winthrop. 

            All four panelists agreed that although they did not initially choose Winthrop, they are now thankful that they did.

            “Studying at Winthrop allowed me to go on to Columbia University to study journalism in New York,” Hurt said.

            “We didn’t come in trying to be the first of anything, we just wanted a job,” Owens said.  “We got a job that was good to us and good for us.”

            A large amount of students turned out at the event to gain insight on what Winthrop was like 50 years ago.

            “I have a passion for African American history, especially at the institution I attend,” said Winthrop student Jay Greathouse. “I expect to get knowledge about the struggle they endured and how they paved the way.”

            According to the panelists, Winthrop’s integration was somewhat peaceful in comparison to other parts of the South.

            While it may have been peaceful, they still felt isolated from their white peers.

            “I couldn’t help but shed a few tears because I was alone,” Hurt said. 

            Towards the end of the luncheon, students had the opportunity to further question the ladies.

“How would you want African American students to carry themselves at Winthrop today,” asked student body vice president Jarvais Jackson.

            Hurt said she wanted African American students to enjoy themselves and become more involved on campus.  

             “The door has been opened, all [students] have to do is just walk through the door,” Barber said.

“We have to set the bar higher, not only here at home but all over the world,” Roddey said.