What are Attack Ads?

Article Details
  • Written By: Michael Pollick
  • Edited By: Bronwyn Harris
  • Images By: Foreign And Commonwealth Office, Photo_Ma, Lisa F. Young
  • Last Modified Date: 08 September 2019
  • Copyright Protected:
    Conjecture Corporation
  • Print this Article
Free Widgets for your Site/Blog
Doctors are about 15% less likely to refer a patient for a cancer screening in the afternoon than in the morning.  more...

September 15 ,  1935 :  Germany adopted the swastika as the official Nazi symbol as the Nuremberg Laws took effect.  more...

During a political campaign, a candidate has essentially two equally persuasive paths to take. One is a positive campaign which extols the experience, personal integrity or future goals of the candidate himself. The other is a negative campaign which points out the lack of experience, questionable personal integrity or dubious future goals of his opponent. In order to persuade voters not to vote for an opponent, many politicians use especially negative commercials known as attack ads.

Attack ads must be crafted very carefully to avoid accusations of slander of libel, which means they should only present facts which are on public record. However, attack ads are not required to provide a fair or balanced portrayal of those facts. The point of an attack ad is to present the opponent in an unflattering or hypocritical light, especially when the issue is very important to potential voters. Attack ads on Democratic presidential Michael Dukakis in 1988, for example, portrayed him as soft on crime after a violent criminal he had ordered released as governor, a man named Willie Horton, committed another murder. Dukakis never fully recovered from the negative effects of these attack ads, even if he had a rational explanation for his previous actions as governor.


Some voters can be turned off by the overuse of attack ads, since this negative campaign style is often brutal, even if effective. When 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry used his military experience as a swift boat commander in Vietnam as a positive campaign issue, a series of attack ads appeared which questioned his honesty, the nature of his injuries and his ability to command others. These attack ads featured veterans who had served with Kerry on the swift boats and believed Kerry's accounts of the events were not entirely factual. Attack ads of this nature may appear mean-spirited to a segment of voters, but they are definitely memorable and effective when presented at a critical time before the general election.

Attack ads essentially force a candidate's opponent to deal with damaging issues in a public way. Sometimes the target of an attack ad will respond in kind with an attack ad of his or her own, or else will find a way to turn a negative into a positive. Some attack ads actually become the jumping off point for a new positive campaign which addresses those accusations. The fact that an opponent can turn a poorly supported attack ad into a positive rebuttal is usually enough incentive for a candidate to use attack ads sparingly and also avoid crossing a moral or ethical line which could hurt the candidate's own perception among voters.


You might also Like


Discuss this Article

Post 2

I really wish politicians would avoid negative campaigning, but I understand why they do it. Neither candidate can afford to look weak or defenseless during an election year. If the other candidate launches attack ads, then the offended candidate needs to prove those accusations are wrong. Some negative ads really do bring out some legitimate shortcomings that should make voters question that candidate's suitability for office.

I remember those "Swiftboat" presidential race ads that made John Kerry looked really bad. As a Democrat, I felt those negative advertisements were a low blow. I wasn't sure if I believed those men who claimed Kerry wasn't an effective leader in Vietnam. But the political damage was done, and the term "swift boating" entered popular culture.

Post 1

We have a local politician around here who seems to do nothing but negative advertisements every election year. I have rarely seen his campaign people create a positive ad that points up his own accomplishments in office. I remember he got in deep trouble when he used some stock silent film footage of a circus to imply his opponent was just as crazy. The film featured a chimp falling off a tricycle, and his opponent happened to be black.

Post your comments

Post Anonymously


forgot password?