"READING PRAVDA."
Another example from the NYT of the need to decipher a story. This weekend's piece start's off,
Going Negative: When It Works
By JIM RUTENBERG and KATE ZERNIKE
THIS was supposed to be the positive campaign. Late last fall, Democrats and Republicans alike predicted that a new campaign rule requiring candidates to appear in their own advertisements and take credit for them would discourage them from making negative ads.
SIXTEEN PARAGRAPHS later, "after the jump" of course, you get the meat.
Negative ads also pay dividends beyond what campaigns actually spend on them by getting more attention in the news media. The debate about the Swift boat ad, which accused Mr. Kerry of lying to get his war medals, has played out for weeks on talk radio and cable news, meaning it was played over and over at no cost to the group running it.
A new study by Ms. Jamieson's group found that nearly half of 2,209 people surveyed nationally said they had seen or heard about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad, though it has only been shown in three states at modest levels. And a new CBS News poll shows that Mr. Kerry's support among veterans has slipped from 46 percent to 37 percent since Democrats' convention.
Studies and focus groups have shown that people like ads that are based on policy, factually accurate and that forecast how a candidate would govern, giving them a reason to vote for a candidate - as well as a reason to vote against the opponent.
"Unless people think it's untruthful, you're not going to get a backlash out of it," Ms. Jamieson said. "If people think the source is credible, that the source is speaking out of a deep conviction, you don't get a sense of attack."
What are they trying not to tell us? "Ho, boy, is this working on Kerry!"
nytimes.com |
