Negative campaign ads increase cynicism, shrink voting pool and erode faith in political process, according to K-State political ad expert

Media Relations and Marketing
9 Anderson Hall
Manhattan, KS 66506-0117
Phone: 785-532-6415
Fax: 785-532-6418

Information provided by K-State Media Relations, K-State's news service, may be reproduced without permission. The marks and names of Kansas State University are protected trademarks and may not be used in any commercial or private endeavor without the approval of the university.

Source: David Procter, 785-532-6983, dprocter@k-state.edu
http://www.mediarelations.k-state.edu/WEB/News/MediaGuide/dprocterbio.html
News release prepared by: Keener A. Tippin II, 785-532-6415, media@k-state.edu

Friday, November 3, 2006

NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN ADS INCREASE CYNICISM, SHRINK VOTING POOL AND ERODE FAITH IN POLITICAL PROCESS, ACCORDING TO K-STATE POLITICAL AD EXPERT

MANHATTAN -- It's political election time across the United States and just days before Election Tuesday, mudslinging via political ads is en vogue.

Just turn on your television in Kansas and you can hear a woman accuse state Democratic state attorney general candidate Paul Morrison of sexual harassment. Morrison's Republican opponent, current Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, is accused of abusing his office to dig into the medical records of Kansans.

According to figures in news reports, political parties have exposed voters to an estimated $160 million in ads attacking congressional candidates alone, compared to just an estimated $17 million spent painting positive images of candidates. That's just over $1 of nice for every $10 of nasty.

But are the politicians and political parties getting what they paid for? Yes and no, according to a Kansas State University political advertisement expert.

David Procter, a K-State professor of speech communication and director of the university's Institute for Civic Discourse and Democracy, said that there are a couple of goals for those negative advertisements. The primary goal is to play on fears and prejudices that people have. Procter said a secondary goal is to disgust people to a certain degree so that they are not interested in participating in the political process.

"What those negative ads do is shrink the pool of people who are likely to vote," Procter said. "They believe that if they can do that and fire their own base up with these very emotional ads, it increases their chances of winning."

Procter said this is opposite of the goal of K-State's Institute for Civic Discourse and Democracy, which is to bring people together, hear voices that are not normally heard and conduct dialogue in a place where everyone can speak without fear of personal attack. The institute, founded in 2004 to address the growing national problem of stalemate and cynicism in public discourse, works to enhance democratization locally, nationally and internationally through improved communication processes, development of a certified facilitator training program and interdisciplinary research on models of civic discourse.

"Our goal is to understand ideas, understand political issues and understand what the opponent is saying," Procter said. "For negative political ads, the goal is very sort of short term. The overriding goal is 'we have to get our guy elected, and whatever it takes to get our guy elected, that's what we're going to do. We'll worry about being statesmen later on.'

"The goal of negative advertising is to make the distinctions absolutely clear," Procter said. "But they are exaggerated because they are highlighting stuff that is barely true. There might be a sliver of truth there, but most of it is completely untrue. The ultimate goal is to get their guy elected on election day."

In research he conducted with fellow political ad expert, William J. Schenck-Hamlin, a K-State professor of speech communication, Procter found what ultimately happens is that these very personal attacks by politicians, as opposed to ads which address issues, drive up political cynicism in voters so that they have less faith in government and become more disillusioned by political candidates.

"You talk to almost any sort of regular person on the street and say, 'what do you think about our choices for elected office?' and I'll bet the majority of them say, 'I wish we could do better than these people; why are they the only choices that we have?'" Procter said. "What has happened is that all across the country these ads are tearing down the person so that when they are finally elected, the residue of these personal attacks, such as 'you're a liar, you're an adulterer, you're a tax cheat,' are still there."

It was this form of negative political discourse that was the basis for establishing the institute following the 2004 presidential election.

"We did research in political advertising for years," Procter said. "Finally, we just got to the point where we were really disillusioned by seeing so many of these very personal, very negative attacks and realizing that they were being done for the short-term effect of getting elected and the not the long-term vision of how can we help the country and how can we solve America’s problems. We decided we should do something about this with the goal of trying to give some voice back to people; back to people who are never heard on political issues.

"We see ourselves as part of a growing movement toward a more civil, inclusive political dialogue," Procter said.