The Chicago Tribune reported yesterday that Sen. Barack Obama is preparing a "a full assault on Sen. Hillary Clinton over ethics and transparency."
Within hours the Clinton campaign responded by alleging that Obama should be held accountable by the media for going "shockingly negative" after "he had promised to play nice."
"This is a tried-and-true technique of the Obama campaign that has repeatedly shifted negative when they find the momentum shifting against them," said Clinton aide Mark Penn.
Penn’s comment prompted Politico reporter Ben Smith to ask, "whether that hadn’t also been what Clinton did when she found the momentum shifting against her."
Penn demured in response to Smith’s question, answering: "They have decided to go consistently negative. They have gone personally negative against Sen. Clinton repeatedly in this campaign, and that is a big difference."
Of couse, the real difference over whether an advertisment is "negative" or "drawing a contrast" is through the eyes of beholder. And the truth is that no matter what you call it, negative/contrast messages, like all political speech, play an important role in our democracy.
The Los Angeles Times published an op-ed today by Professor John Geer and Ken Goldstein (yes, that Ken Goldstein) exploring the importance of "negative" ads.
The authors note that "tirades against negativity reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of elections. Negativity is essential to democratic politics and ultimately yields a more engaged and better-informed public…Whether we like it or not, attack ads and the debate they trigger offer an invaluable way to develop those answers. All candidates bring strengths and weaknesses to the table. How do we learn about the weaknesses without their being discussed and debated? In fact, the real problem is not attack ads but all the hand-wringing by observers over the supposedly pernicious effects of negative campaigning."
Contrary to conventional wisdom, "there’s little evidence that exposure to negative advertising has ill effects on the public. The great majority of scholarly studies, including our own, demonstrates that exposure to negative advertising engages and informs citizens. Consider that in 2004, one of the most negative campaigns in modern times, turnout was up about 5 percentage points from 2000, and the public was more aware of what the major party candidates stood for than in 2000.
Part of the reason negative ads have this beneficial effect is that they are more substantive than positive ads. Our research shows negative ads are more likely to focus on issues, are more specific and contain many more facts than positive ads. They enhance political interest and familiarity with the candidates’ qualifications more than positive ads, which, in turn, raises citizens’ likelihood of voting. In short, negative ads are more likely than positive ads to foster the kind of engagement we all want from the American electorate."
