POLITICAL ADVERTISING

October 2004
		Since the end of the Democratic and Republican national conventions, both the Kerry and Bush campaigns have launched ads aimed at reaching voters in swing states and the remaining undecided voters. How does each campaign know what ad message will appeal to certain voters -- and whether or not these ads succeed in reaching the targeted groups? An expert answers your questions about campaign advertising.

Online NewsHour Special Reports: Media Watch Vote 2004: Ad Watch Forum Introduction How does an incumbent president's 'free' airtime impact his campaign's media strategy -- and that of his opponent? Is there any evidence to suggest negative ads are more effective than 'issue' ads in winning over voters -- especially the swing voters? How would you compare the advertising by Bush and Kerry in this election with the Bush and Clinton election of 1992? How can viewers learn to distinguish fact from fiction in political ads? Browse the NewsHour's media and politics coverage.	Ann Brooks from Springfield, Mo., asks: Historically speaking, has a higher proportion of negative campaign ads resulted in that candidate's victory? Is there any evidence to suggest negative ads are more effective than "issue" ads in winning over voters -- especially the swing voters? And, is this one of the most negative ad campaigns in recent history? Dr. Kathleen Hall Jamieson responds: I try to avoid the word "negative" as much as possible because it mixes two separate concepts: attack and dirty campaigning. If by negative you mean dirty campaigning then a second definition is required. And even the academic literature employs confusing definitions of attack. Some call an ad an attack ad if it mentions the opponent; others reserve the label for an ad that only makes a case against the opponent (what I call a pure attack ad). I use the word "contrast" to talk about ads that make a case against as well as a case for. There are other difficulties in answering your question as well. A candidate may create a large number of pure attack ads but air each one infrequently. Alternatively, a candidate might create just one pure attack ad but air it all the time. In general voters find attack that is issue-based, accurate, and relevant to governance acceptable as long as they regard it as civil. There is some evidence that women voters (with the group of particular interest to consultants -- moderate Republican women included) are especially turned off by personal attack and attack that stretches the truth. Overall voters prefer contrast ads to pure attack. Is there more attack this year? At the presidential level, in number of ads that contain some attack, yes. Is more money being spent in the general election presidential race on attack than on advocacy (making a case for the candidate not against the opponent)? Yes. Is the number of illegitimate claims in ads higher than in the past? We won't know until the campaign is over.