Mudslinging kept to a minimum in ads
An MU professor has analyzed Talent and McCaskill's campaign advertisements.
Published Oct. 20, 2006
When it comes to mudslinging, candidates in a major political race are usually filthy by mid-October.
But according to a study conducted by MU communications professor William Benoit, the U.S. Senate race between incumbent Jim Talent, R-Mo., and Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill has avoided mudslinging and attacking advertisements. Instead, most of the advertisements aired by both candidates have focused on the strengths of the endorsing candidate rather than attacking the character of his or her opponent.
"Many voters say they don't like mudslinging," Benoit said. "The most attacks and the harshest attacks are sponsored by someone other than candidate in the hope that if there is a backlash from the attack ads, it won't be connected to the candidate."
An MU news release stated that Benoit's research analyzed the statements in 14 of Talent and McCaskill advertisements, seven from each campaign.
He found that 71 percent of the statements in Talent's ads and 74 percent of the statements in McCaskill's ads were positive.
Benoit said both campaigns are still running some attack ads, but groups not directly affiliated with the candidates' offices air the majority of attack ads.
"Every race is a little bit different," Benoit said. "Some focus on the issues. Some focus on character. The public says they like positive ads more than mudslinging, but that doesn't mean attack ads don't work."
Benoit's study classified attack statements in ads as criticisms of policy, voting record and character. Most people believe that attacks on the political record of a candidate are fair while attacks on a candidate's character are unfair, Benoit said. Even so, Benoit said if used correctly, attack ads can still be useful in a candidate's campaign, especially if a candidate is desperate.
"If one candidate starts to fall far behind in the polls, they are more likely to start airing more attack ads," he said.
But strategic communications professor Paul Bolls and graduate student Katie Roehrick conducted a study that found slow-paced, non-attack ads are more effective at capturing the attention and remaining in the memory of viewers.
"To improve political dialogue, campaigns should be more focused on educating voters on, and helping them remember, the political issues of a candidate rather than trying to sell a particular candidate," Bolls said.
Bollis said though he understands why a campaign would use an attack ad, he does not believe it benefits society.
"It's certainly understandable that campaigns use attack ads, but I don't think it improves political dialogue," Bolls said. "Voters don't learn anything useful that helps them improve political decision making from attack ads."
Bolls said there are better venues for mudslinging than advertisements.
"Advertising is not a good channel to engage in the back and forth name-calling debates," Bolls said. "That kind of dialogue ought to be done face to face in a political debate."