|
|
|
Adwatch!
In the 1988 presidential election between Bush and Dukakis, there was a sudden surge of attack advertising. Some of these ads made dubious claims, but they nevertheless had an effect on the electorate. After the election, the press decided to start monitoring the paid messages that candidates put on television, to make sure that the ads were truthful and fair, and to alert the public when they weren't. When candidates know that their ads will be scrutinized, they are less likely to produce inaccurate ads in the first place. This kind of monitoring is called an Adwatch, and you can do one too.
Create your own Adwatch
These are some of the questions you can ask about each ad:
1. Whose ad is it?
2. Are they stating the whole truth? Is the ad accurate?
3. What aren't they telling the viewer? What are they leaving out?
4. Is the ad informative about issues? Or is it full of fluff?
5. Who is their target audience?
These questions address two main concerns. First, in your Adwatch you want to look out for any information that could be misleading to viewers, whether it's in the form of words or images. For an example of a misleading ad, see Murray Sabrin's ad, "Auto Emissions", from the 1997 New Jersey governor's race. Another example is Governor Whitman's ad called "McGreevey and Taxes", in which she also accuses McGreevey of running misleading ads against her. And don't forget to Adwatch ads that seem positive - they can be even more misleading than the negative ads!
One way to fact-check ads in the mayor's race is to check the Student Voices' collection of Inquirer and Daily News articles following the race. To research particular issues, check out our research site, or use the search at philly.com.
Secondly, your Adwatch can evaluate whether the candidates are trying to win votes based on their image, or based on their stand on the issues. The less real information in the ads, the more image-based they are.
Evaluating the Ads
Here are some terms that you can use once you've fact-checked and evaluated your ads, and you're ready to show the world your results. These terms will help you be fair to the candidates. In other words, to practice what you preach!
- False - Saying an ad is false is a very serious charge. This term should be used only when you're absolutely sure that there are incorrect facts in the ad.
- Misleading - This word is the one you'll want to use for ads that create an incorrect impression by selectively presenting facts or quoting out of context.
- Unfair - Unfair is a lot like misleading. Unfair could describe an ad that manipulates the facts in order to create a false impression in viewers.
- Exaggeration - Everyone exaggerates sometimes, but are the candidates doing it in their ads? Exaggeration is when the facts and figures have been overstated, but not so much that you would describe the ad as false.
- Not the whole story - In some ads, all the facts presented are true, but by not telling you the whole story the candidate leads you to a particular conclusion, in their favor.
- Uninformative - Image-based ads may be accurate, but not very informative for viewers who want to know what the candidates think about the issues.
- True - Hopefully, in the mayoral campaign you'll find lots of ads that fall into this category. Not all political ads are out to trick you!
You can design your Adwatch any way you want, but these suggestions, as well as Projects at the bottom of the other pages in this section can be your guide. Post what you found in your Adwatch on your Student Voices website, or chat about it in the discussion room! Remember, you don't have to limit your Adwatch to television ads. You could expand your search to the candidates' Web sites, radio spots, print ads, and leaflets. Good luck! Let us know what you find!
Back to the table of contents.
See the sources used to create this guide to political advertising.
|
 |
|