Search Salon

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Recently in Salon Media

Media
Good old sex
Modern Maturity -- the largest-circulation magazine in America -- gets sexier as the baby boomers realize that 50 isn't old after all.
By Sean Elder
[09/01/99]

Alt
Rag vs. rag
Skeptic magazine should take a cue from its splashier, diametric opposite, Fate. Plus: Jerry Stahl on heroin -- again; yet another writer "discovers" eBay.
By Jenn Shreve
[08/27/99]

Alt
Therapy is painless
From Freud to divorce court: A therapist to meet your every need. Plus: Dan Savage vs. the Republicans; Elvis' "black satin-like" pajamas on the auction block.
By Jenn Shreve
[08/20/99]

Alt
The malling of America
Old Navy and Starbucks and Jamba Juice! Oh my! Plus: Feed looks at the latest trend in computer interfaces.
By Jenn Shreve
[08/13/99]

Media
Names that live in infamy
Killers want notoriety. Let's not give it to them.
By David Brin
[08/13/99]

Complete archives for Media

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Obviously, there are many intelligent and highly regarded people who take the opposite view -- on all those issues. But that's why life is the rich fabric that it is. What's more, the good part about living here in the United States is that you don't get shot for disagreeing (most of the time).

The reason I feel the way I do about political advertising is that I've been making my living in advertising for about 30 years, and I know the damage it can do. There's an old, very old, adage that says, "nothing kills a bad product faster than good advertising." You get convinced to stop for a Bonzoburger, you don't like it, so hey, you don't eat there again. Ah, capitalism! But if you elect a candidate that doesn't work, you're stuck with him, pal. And before you get to not vote for him again, he gets to vote on dissolving your Social Security, sending troops to Kosovo and impeaching the president (another guy whose ads you liked).

All this assumes that the only reason you vote for someone is their advertising. And there are those people who would say that they're not influenced by the ads. These, I suspect, are the same people who pay an extra $8,000 for an SUV because it has a first-aid kit. They say that while they may see the ads, they vote because of the issues and the platforms put forth by the candidates. This may well be true for a lot of folks. Or to put it another way, Oh, God, I hope so.

But the fact of the matter is that you get bombarded by a lot of advertising for one simple, proven-in-the-political-arena reason: It works. As Steven Kates wrote in the December 1998 Journal of Business Ethics (hey, just because I'm in advertising ...), "Political advertising is believed to work under certain conditions for certain types of voters and for certain types of purposes such as image development, agenda setting, or attacking opponents."

Even if you're not a "certain type of voter," ask yourself: Isn't this just a peachy way to elect people? It's image we want, so let's get ourselves a handsome guy -- he's much more qualified than Abe would ever be. And of course, we want the agenda set on TV, not by the needs of the voters, so let's make sure the election is about Willie Horton, not about where the money is coming from for our schools.

But let's get to the real sirloin of this discussion, what we all know is poking us in the eye and giving us a national migraine: attack ads.

Next page | Can democracy survive if we force candidates to mud-wrestle?