Not all negative political ads have to be accompanied by the requisite gloom and doom music and grainy black and white photos of a candidate. Take this ad, for example, run by an independent organization (independent expenditure) for a US Senate race in Utah.
I feel as if most people think that the most effective way to get a message across in a television ad is all the fine detail like the lighting of commercial and even the music in the background. The truth for me is that the message is really all that counts. I’d rather see a straight forward ad with negative content than a negative ad overdone with dull music and photos. Those types of ads make it seem like the groups are trying too hard. I’m not saying I am a fan of negative ads against candidates but since they are proven to be effective, it seems to make more sense to me to use something like the ad above where they are simply explaining a reason a specific man is not right for the job.
This ad is negative because it is attacking Liljenquist’s record, not his absences. It attempts to give Liljenquist a negative portrait, by repeatedly referring to his absences in Senate. They show this by primarily showing his fading image, implying that he’s not there when it counts.
This ad is attacking Lilijenquist’s integrity. It portrays him as someone who is so lazy they can’t even show up for their job. They say that he can’t even be bothered to show up to vote in the Senate, why would he be any different in the United States Capitol.
What makes an ad “negative” is the way it describes a person and their actions. In the Lilijenquist ad, it is being said that the guy didn’t attend a lot of important meetings and sessions, which is meant to say that this guy wouldn’t care about the people of the USA and do anything to help them. People would not want someone with that description as their president, so they would be convinced to choose the “other guy” to be president
This ad is telling the people that Lilijenquist is lazy and self centered. It makes the viewers feel as if he can’t be bothered with anyone else, and only worries about himself getting ahead. Which is true for many people, but in his situation it doesn’t look good. He was portrayed that he would care about the American people.
A negative ad is truly “negative” when the producers of the ad consider referencing all of the undesirable features about their opponent rather than referencing the positive qualities of their candidate. I believe that in this ad they use this method while explaining Lilijenquist and his faults. They try to make people feel that he does not care about his people.
The ad is attacking liljenquist’s absence in the senate. I think ads are really manipulative when it comes to politics because they will always be biased. The ad will eventually convince enough people to vote against him, without knowing what his ideologies are in his campaign.