See some of the typical video techniques of political deception and misdirection: With its site, the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania aims to help the public recognize flaws in arguments, including those made in political ads. They may have done so - we need more research on this - but they may have also produced ads that were far less effective at mobilizing or persuading voters.”įrom a historical perspective, it is worth considering, too, that increased news media focus on negative advertising itself has helped accelerate this trend, creating a vicious cycle of attack politics driven by political consultants and journalists. The Romney campaign’s “reliance on outside spending put a significant burden on those groups to produce and air ads that could resonate with voters. In another May 2013 post for “The Monkey Cage,” Franz examines data suggesting that the type and potentially lower quality of ads by outside groups may have played a role in the election. A related 2013 study in The Forum by Michael Franz of Bowdoin, “Interest Groups in Electoral Politics: 2012 in Context,” provides additional analysis and data relating to the role of outside groups in the most recent ad wars. Of course, the apparent rising volume and intensity of negative ads may reflect legal changes in how campaigns are funded in a post- Citizens United landscape.
With regard to advertising, they conclude that ads mattered but only in “very circumscribed ways” and the “effect of ads appeared to decay quickly.” Further, they assert that “back-loading - airing ads close to the election - was actually more effective than front-loading - airing ads early in the campaign - if the goal was to influence voters on Election Day.” In a May 2013 post for “The Monkey Cage,” a leading political science blog, John Sides of George Washington and Lynn Vavreck of UCLA summarize their research on the 2012 campaign. The Wesleyan Media Project compiled the following chart to show how political advertising has become distinctly more negative over the past few election cycles:
Journalists writing about the 2016 race can find a searchable and shareable archive of 2016 primary election ads through the Political TV Ad Archive, an initiative funded by a Knight News Challenge grant. Trump, on the other hand, has by and large used contrast ads, which both promote himself and attack Clinton. The report notes that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have taken different approaches with their advertising: “Just over 60 percent of Clinton’s ads have attacked Trump while 31 percent have been positive, focusing on Clinton. A September 2016 report from the Wesleyan Media Project shows that 53 percent of ads that aired over the previous month were negative - compared to 48 percent of ads that ran during a comparable period of the 2012 campaign. The 2016 presidential election already has become a nasty one, however. Fowler directs t he Wesleyan Media Project, which monitors and analyzes televised campaign ads and found that three-quarters of ads aired during the last presidential race “appealed to anger.” Political ads became much more negative over the course of the 2012 presidential campaign. Erika Franklin Fowler, an assistant professor of government, has noted that 2012 may be remembered for its record-setting negativity. But they are difficult to escape during election season and the 2016 presidential election season won’t be much different. Many people have a visceral reaction to political attack ads on TV: Not much will prompt a faster change of the channel.