Video Wars: Why Negative TV Ads Work in Today’s Political Campaigns

With TV screens filled with advertisements for candidates in the Nov. 4 election, let’s have a few positive words about negative political commercials.

True, defending them is like trying to put in a good word for a toxic dump. The 30-second commercials so popular this year exaggerate, oversimplify and unfairly state candidates’ records. They are totally joyless, without the spontaneity, tension and fun of the rallies and speeches of older politics. And they are mean.

But in a nation whose politics were launched by heavy-handed frontiersmen and New England pamphleteers with quills sharp as stilettos, today’s commercials are part of a long tradition of rough political confrontation. And in California this year, with its absence of formal political debate, the ads, though simplistic, are one of the few ways voters can differentiate among candidates on such important issues as the environment, crime and fiscal competence.

This year the race between Democratic Sen. Alan Cranston and his Republican challenger, Rep. Ed Zschau of Los Altos, is often cited as an example of television commercials gone bad.

Trying to destroy his challenger after Zschau’s mild upset win in the June primary, Cranston hit the air in summer with tough attacks. One commercial sought to link Zschau, a centrist candidate in the primary, with right-wing Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the television evangelist.

Zschau’s commercials include attacks on Cranston for opposing bills dealing with terrorism and drug abuse, even though the senator has voted for or co-sponsored many such bills.

These exchanges are mild compared with some of the advertising horrors used in hard-fought legislative races around the state. Records are distorted, minor procedural votes magnified into serious offenses against constituents.

But remember that politics has always been a rough confrontational business, criticized for uncouth ways. Early propagandists were famous for their vicious personal attacks on politicians now revered, such as George Washington. And out on the frontier, away from the coffeehouses of New England, there was no limit to the meanness of political assaults when whiskey barrels were rolled out in early-day get-out-the-vote rallies.

The development of radio and later television brought mass advertising techniques to politics--the pioneering efforts were in California, and by the late 1950s and ‘60s, as TV became dominant, the medium increasingly became the stage for political campaigns.

Early commercials tended to be positive. The candidate walking along the beach, often with family, became a metaphor for environmental concern and personal sensitivity, favorite themes of the ‘70s. Even these upbeat ads, which seem harmless today, were ruthlessly attacked by critics, who demanded a more “warts and all” approach. The idea of viewers receiving information about candidates in short, concentrated, highly visual doses offended many scholars and serious journalists, who longed for serious, issues-oriented debate.

Criticism mounted in the ‘80s when political campaign managers, adopting more of the techniques of advertising and marketing researchers, decided that negative advertising worked. It was a sharp change from past political theory, which held that such ads could backfire. Political consultants now believe that people remember negative information. “We know from years of work in research psychology that people process negative information more deeply than positive information,” Ed Mellman, a pollster, has said.

No doubt negative advertising will die when someone thinks of a new approach. Advertising prides itself on being a cutting-edge business; one day this year’s mean-spirited ads will be as old-fashioned as the sensitive ‘70s candidate walking on the beach. But while they are in fashion, such commercials do some good.

First of all, many of them focus on votes, attendance records and, occasionally, personal conduct. Granted, there are an interminable number of votes in Congress. A House member might vote against a drug-control measure, for example, in an early procedural test because of opposition to a specific provision, and then support the bill on a final vote. A crafty campaign manager will ignore the final vote and use the early one for a commercial. But still, the ultimate effect is to focus attention on a member’s voting, a part of the democratic process that is usually ignored. What it means, during this era of negative commercials, is that senators and House members will have to give more thought to votes.

In addition, the commercials that focus on issues bring important matters into the homes of voters who are not particularly interested in politics, who ignore political and government news and who are preoccupied with the heavy concerns of survival in a modern society.

A good example of that are the commercials in the race between Republican Gov. George Deukmejian and his challenger, Democratic Mayor Tom Bradley of Los Angeles. Bradley’s main commercials focus on what the mayor considers the governor’s failure to regulate chemicals that are polluting the state’s drinking water. That is an important issue. Science is learning more every day about the dangers of the new chemicals. The commercials forced Deukmejian to defend his record vigorously.

The Deukmejian commercials direct attention toward Bradley’s decision to remain neutral on the reconfirmation of Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird, his city fiscal performance and his environmental record, including radio commercials criticizing the city’s failure to stop its pollution of Santa Monica Bay. Again, all of them are issues that should be publicized and discussed.

Most important, additional of information is available on the records of all these candidates, for those who want know more. It is true that changing tastes in American life have sharply reduced the opportunity to see candidates in person. The shopping-center rally, a big suburban Saturday event just 20 years ago, has all but vanished. But newspapers cover candidates’ activities and attempt to explore their records in some detail. As the commercials have become more outrageous, journalists are spending more time exposing their half truths.

For the immediate future, “hit” commercials are a political fixture. Voters must learn to live with them, using them as guideposts for future exploration, as they do with other TV ads. Many people try a frozen dinner or diet cola because of an attractive ad. But if the product tastes bad, the consumer won’t buy it a second time.