|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| AD WARS | |
 September 21, 2000 |
||
|
|
The NewsHour Media Unit is funded by a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts.
|
|
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, $342 million, even in Washington, that's a lot of money. |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Record ad spending | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Yes, it is. TERENCE SMITH: I wonder if, A: if it's a record; and B: if it is, what it tells you about this campaign.
TERENCE SMITH: And we should explain that the study you did looks at advertising at all levels. Ken Goldstein, you focused primarily on the presidential level, the national level, and there I gather, the money is concentrated in certain states. KEN GOLDSTEIN: This presidential election and the television ad wars is really in 17 to 20 states. Most of the people in this country aren't seeing any advertising at all. TERENCE SMITH: And these are targeted because these are the states in... KEN GOLDSTEIN: These are the... TERENCE SMITH: -- states up for grabs? KEN GOLDSTEIN: These are the usual suspects, the big states in the Midwest, the Ohios, the Pennsylvanias, the Michigans, the Missouris, and Wisconsins. TERENCE SMITH: Right, and that's where the money's going. So Peter Marks, what does that tell you about the campaign, in terms of tracking it? |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Tracking campaigns through ads | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
TERENCE SMITH: Right. As good as the polls, or perhaps even better. PETER MARKS: Well, as my friend Ken has pointed out to me, it's better in a way than waiting for the tracking polls from the campaigns. If the campaigns start advertising in Colorado, for example, or one of them does, you know essentially what their tracking polls say. TERENCE SMITH: Right. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, when you lock at this and you look at these issue ads, do they fairly represent the views of the candidates? KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: The issue ads are not simply speaking to the views of the candidates. Some of them are simply trying to set an issue agenda, and so they're not making a distinction between the candidates. The hospital group is, in fact, appealing to both candidates to restore that funding. TERENCE SMITH: Right. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| Issue advocacy and special interests | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: But in some cases what the issue advocacy money does is tips the balance of the message toward one candidate. The message of Citizens for Better Medicare, which is "we want a prescription drug benefit but keep government out of our medicine cabinet," is, in fact, a pro-Bush message. That's a lot of money being spent to advance underlying assumptions that help George Bush. There's one other thing to note about the messages. Sometimes the messages being put up by the issue advocates are not the messages in the candidates' ads. Planned parenthood ran a series of ads reminding people that George W. Bush is pro-life, not pro-choice, and Handgun Control is making handgun control an issue. We expect the National Rifle Association to be responding in kind, even though neither campaign appears to be raising that issue very much. And so the possibility having issues raised that the candidates may not want to focus on, is also there with the issue advocates. TERENCE SMITH: Ken Goldstein, how fair is it on the presidential level, when one represents the view of the other?
TERENCE SMITH: But it does drive the issues of the campaign and focus it, does it not? KEN GOLDSTEIN: Sure. But at least at the presidential level, the amount being spent by these interest groups is a small, small proportion of the amount being spent by the parties, and by the actual campaigns. So in the... about a little over $30 million has been spent by each side in the presidential campaign, only about a million of that, probably a little over a million, at this point, has been by interest groups. About $20 million has been by the parties, and about $10 million has been by the candidates. You compare that with the races like Kentucky, the Northup versus Jordan races, when everything that Kathleen was saying is absolutely right. You know, in one district in Kentucky, Citizens for Better Medicare has spent over $400,000. The AFL has spent over $400,000, close to $2 million in spending just in that one district, less than a quarter of that by the actual candidates themselves. TERENCE SMITH: Peter Marks, what does that do to and say about the campaign finance system, if this goes on in a period when the public financing of the campaigns has kicked in?
TERENCE SMITH: Right. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, what's your view of that? It certainly brings it to the fore?
TERENCE SMITH: And of course in that case, you're talking about specific interests, special interests, if you like, pushing their agenda, rather than a particular candidate. KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: The reality is that issue advocacy comes in different shapes and sizes. There is a form of issue advocacy whose goal is influencing legislation and shaping candidates' agenda, regardless of party, to that legislative point of view. Then there's another, which mimics candidate advertising and looks very much like an ad produced by a candidate. Citizens for Better Medicare falls into the first of those categories, and not the second. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Does issues advertising work? | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
TERENCE SMITH: Ken Goldstein, is there any way to measure the impact of these ads? I mean is there any correlation between the intensely of the advertising campaign, and where the candidates stand in the polls?
TERENCE SMITH: So it helps? KEN GOLDSTEIN: Sure. And at the margin one might say, "well, 95 percent of the race is being decided on these other fundamental factors." But at the margin in a swing state at a key time among key people, advertising can be decisive. TERENCE SMITH: Peter ... go ahead, Kathleen. KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: If I could add, our rolling cross sectional analysis, which ultimately will analyze 100,000 voters, reported before the Republican Convention that in the 17 contested states, Gore had begun to close up the gap with Bush in large part because the Republicans went off the air while Gore stayed on the air with messages that were resonating -- advertising works, particularly when it's unrebutted. KEN GOLDSTEIN: Exactly. TERENCE SMITH: All right. Peter Marks, in the little time we have left, tell me, you were... I know from your reporting in Detroit, which you described as sort of the epicenter of much of this television advertising, what's it like there? The people must be sort of inundated with the ads? PETER MARKS: Well, it's interesting. I sat in a hotel room; I often do this. I go to a city, I turn on the TV and just... And sit, a lot of room service. But the effect is to crowd out any other kind of advertising. You don't see cars on TV, you don't see baby food commercials. You just see candidates and ballot questions over and over and over again. And I think for a time, it does spark interest. People get tuned in. They can't help it. But I think it starts to turn. I'm not sure when that happens, but we were starting to hear people there become very disgusted with especially anything that sounded slightly attack-oriented. And I suspect that in two or three weeks of this, more of this, people will start to turn off to the election as opposed to stay on. TERENCE SMITH: Right. Well, we're going to have to turn ourselves off. Thank you very much, all three of you. Appreciate it. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
The NewsHour Media Unit, including this site, is funded by grants from:   |
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
TERENCE
SMITH: For more on the ad wars, we're joined by the authors of the two
studies: Kathleen Hall Jamieson, dean of the Annenberg School for Communication
at the University of Pennsylvania; and Ken Goldstein, professor of political
science at the University of Wisconsin. He is studying political advertising
this campaign season as part of a joint project with the New York University
School of Law-- that study is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, which
also supports the NewsHour's media coverage. Joining us also
is Peter Marks, The New York Times' national correspondent
who covers media and politics. Welcome to all three of you. 
KATHLEEN
HALL JAMIESON: It's a record, and it tells us that there are a number
of voices that are being heard across this election cycle that are reaching
a level of saturation that is approaching the level of the parties.
So for example, the Citizens for Better Medicare, which is a group organized
by the pharmaceutical industry, is now approaching in the amount of
advertising that it has aired the amount spent by the Democratic National
Committee. It raises the possibility that we have a third party, Republicans,
Democrats and Citizens for Better Medicare. It also says that health
care reform is being centered on the agenda by a lot of issue- advocacy
money. The second largest spender-- which has actually spent a lot more
in concentrated terms in recent months-- is a group of hospitals that
is trying to get the restoration of hospital funding that the cuts were
made during the budget resolution of '93 and '95. They're trying to
get that money back. If you put those two campaigns together, what you
see is the agenda setting focus on health care being driven largely
by issue advocacy, then reinforced in the candidates' voices. 
PETER
MARKS: You know, it's the old story, follow the money and you follow
where this campaign is being waged. Very interestingly, the parties
first staked out these states back in June, these 17 states, and like
a storm that parked over one area, they stayed there all summer raining
ads. It's been that way for three months. But interestingly, just recently,
they're starting to change their strategies in reaction to the polls,
so that suddenly Florida-- a state that was being advertised in-- became
a much heavier Bush buy in the last two weeks, because the polls were
showing Gore making amazing inroads there in a state he thought was
going to be safe. So it's really the way that the ads are being purchased
is a great way for reporters to follow where the strategies are being
played out. 
KEN
GOLDSTEIN: How fair... well, on the presidential level, we're not seeing
that much advertising by the interest groups. Most of the soft advertising,
most of the issue advertising, or supposed issue advertising, or sham
issue advertising, is being carried out by the parties. In the last
week, we saw AFL-CIO coming on for the Democrats, Handgun Control, like
Kathleen said, coming on for the Democrats. Interestingly, with handgun
control, consistent again with what Kathleen was saying, in the swing
states-- in the Midwest where I am, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio-- gun
control there is not a great issue for Al Gore, and that's something
he'd rather not talk about. 
PETER
MARKS: Well, you know, first of all, I just wanted to say, you know,
what's fascinating here is how much of this campaign at the presidential
level, Terry, has revolved around issues like prescription drugs. I
mean, on the one hand, it's very... There's something redeeming about
candidates talking about issues. But can you imagine Lyndon Johnson
or JFK running on a prescription drug platform? I mean it's fascinating
to me how narrowly focused this campaign is, and how television has,
you know, narrowed the focus even further. There have been four or five
or six prescription drug ads by these campaigns. I mean, this is not
even, you know, looking at the entire health care package. It's one
specific idea that has become this notion that's been deconstructed
by both sides, and attacked by both sides. I just think there's something
remarkable about that, and the level of the discourse to which... the
degree to which we're talking about this one particular thing. 
KATHLEEN
HALL JAMIESON: Well, one of the things I think that's plausible is that
the pharmaceutical industry, which actually has been advertising since
1993, began its image advertising campaign for the industry during the
Clinton health care reform debate, and in one form or another has been
on the air for much, or most of the years since then. I think has achieved
the first clear legislative victory attributable to issue advocacy beyond
the effects of the tobacco ads against the McCain tobacco bill. And
that is when Dennis Hastert announced after the Clinton State of the
Union that the Republicans would put forward a prescription drug plan,
what the pharmaceutical industry accomplished was getting both candidates
and both parties on record saying that the taxpayers are going to fund
this benefit. Now we're going to talk about the details, and the war
for the prescription drug plan is being fought, in part, through Citizens
for Better Medicare on the issue of whether this should be through Medicare
or outside it. And they have a clear point of view. I think the fact
that the candidates are addressing this is in part attributable to the
effects of a long-lived issue advocacy campaign by the pharmaceutical
industry. 
KEN
GOLDSTEIN: Listen, this election is being decided on fundamental factors
mostly -- the state of the economy, the fact that we're a world at peace,
and the fact that there's still slightly more Democrats than Republicans
in the electorate as a whole. At the margin, though, advertising can
make a difference. When is advertising most likely to make a difference?
When you have a one-sided flow of information and when voters are softer
in their attitudes towards the two candidates. So one of the key things
that we found in our study was that in August, in addition to kissing
his wife an having a good convention speech and some Bush campaign missteps,
Al Gore also had a 3-2 or 2-1 advantage in many of the key media markets
in the Midwest, Detroit, Grand Rapids, Flint, Toledo, Cincinnati, Cleveland,
places like that. And working with some other polling data, we actually
see that that seems to have bought him two or three percentage points,
perhaps even four percentage points in those markets.