Defining Ads And Candidate Access: Free Time

By Author: Adela
Total Articles: 74
Comment this article

In their treatment of advertising, reporters face other problems—among them a vocabulary that seriously confuses the electorate. Like pundits and many scholars, reporters tend to label any attack in an ad "negative," a word that suggests that the content is inaccurate or in some way illegitimate. Content analysis, however, shows that ads that attack and those that contrast—make a case for the sponsor and against the opponent—contain higher levels of policy claims and are, on average, more accurate than ads that simply make the case for the Tag Heuer Replica sponsor. By labeling attacks negative, we penalize what can be useful information that helps voters distinguish the records and proposals of the candidates. Reporters are also less likely to police so-called positive ads, even though research shows that such ads contain more distortion, on average, than ads that attack or ads that contrast.

To avoid this indiscriminate use of the word negative, we recommend separating ads into three categories: attack, advocacy, and contrast. ...
... An attack ad makes a case against the opponent but not for the sponsor; an advocacy ad makes a case for the sponsor without making a case against the opponent; a contrast ad makes a case for the sponsor and a case against the opponent. We consider contrast ads superior to attack ads because the presence of the sponsor's case increases candidate accountability and the case for the sponsor gives voters something to vote for, rather than simply reasons to vote against an opposing candidate.

The casual use of the word negative also creates a misleading impression of the character of most campaigns. Contrary to conventional wisdom, 1998 was not a highly "negative" year for candidate ads. Instead, candidates were almost twice as likely to produce ads that advocated (43.8%) as ads that attacked (23.9%). The pro-portion of ads that contrasted—combined advocate and attack—fell between the two extremes (32.3%).

The perception that 1998 was a negative year was driven by the habitual focus of press and pundits on attack over advocacy, by intense press interest in the New York senatorial race, and by a high level of attack in party-sponsored ads. More than half of the party-sponsored ads attacked, freeing candidate-sponsored advertising to engage in higher levels of contrast and advocacy.

For decades scholars and activists argued that candidates should be given free air time on the condition that they use it to speak directly to camera. The rationale for the proposal was straightforward. It would diminish the need to raise money and would in-crease candidate accountability, because when speaking on camera rather than through an anonymous voice-over announcer, candidates would be credited or blamed for what they said.

In 1996, the FCC cleared the way for stations and networks to provide unpaid blocks of time, generally 1 to 2.5 minutes, to major party candidates. This ruling opened another channel of access for the candidates offered the time. Free television air time was made available to both major party presidential campaigns in 1996 by several networks in a variety of formats: sometimes the time was included within news and magazine programs, sometimes as a stand-alone feature in Tag Heuer Carrera Replica programming. The candidates were invited to make short speeches, speaking directly to the camera, with few if any other production elements. In total, the Dole and Clinton campaigns each produced twenty-five free-time mini-speeches. These ranged from 1 to 2.5 minutes in length. In some congressional and state races, air time was also donated by local broadcasters. Proposals calling on broadcasters to give free air time to candidates are part of current campaign reform legislation in Congress. Some believe that in return for being given the digitized spectrum at no cost, the networks ought to provide candidates with free time.