Saw an MSNBC report this morning on the California campaign, examining the latest TV ads from Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger. \"Examining\" is actually too strong a word.<\/p>\n
The motif of the report was this: Downbeat, \"negative\" ads are bad and morally suspect. Upbeat, \"positive\" ads are unquestionably good. The Scwharzenegger ad they showed was certainly upbeat, but it was also vacuous, insubstantial and utterly lacking in content. <\/p>\n
Now granted, a lot of negative ads employ sleazy tactics \u2014 the grainy photos, ominous music, etc. \u2014 but they need not be all about special effects. They can be a way of telling the truth.<\/p>\n
The problem now is that journalists are stuck in a positive\/negative trope that is incapable of considering or evaluating whether political ads are A) true or B) saying anything worthwhile at all beyond a love for flags and puppies and children. Part of the reason for this trope is laziness \u2014 positive\/negative is a lot easier to determine than true\/false, which can take a lot of work and, you know, reporting<\/i> to discern.<\/p>\n
The result of this lazy, irrelevant perspective is a tendency for the media to favor cheerful liars. Remind you of anyone?<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Saw an MSNBC report this morning on the California campaign, examining the latest TV ads from Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger. “Examining” is actually too strong a word. The motif of the report was this: Downbeat, “negative” ads are bad and morally suspect. Upbeat, “positive” ads are unquestionably good. The Scwharzenegger ad they showed was […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":111,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[27,91],"class_list":["post-375","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-politics","tag-schwarzeneggar"],"yoast_head":"\n