Introduction
In the contemporary world, governments are elected to help in managing the countries toward political, social, and economic stability. Before elections, political campaigns are conducted by the various aspirants who seek the people’s approval to manage specific seats such as the presidency. Technology has altered the way political groups push for influence and power.
Attack ads are occasionally used to discredit the opponents and gain support by attracting voters of the other party. Some view this as a negative campaign approach as it may unfairly criticize the opponent, but it is not illegal. Political morality is constantly tested in the case where attack ads are launched. When misinformation is presented, then the campaign ads can be considered unethical as they damage the democratic process. In the political field, the use of attack ads is considered morally right if the ads contain relevant and true information, promoting healthy competition and transparency to the voters.
Optimistic Perspective on Negative Ads in Politics
The use of attack ads during campaigns has resulted in the emergence of a controversial topic about its morality. Some argue it is ethically right, while others view it as being a wrong approach toward political ambitions. The advancement in technology has presented various forms in which these advertisements can be delivered, that is, radio, television, print ads, and digital campaigns on social media platforms (Postman). These ads influence the election by persuading the opponent’s voters to change their stance (Postman).
The ethics of attack ads is considered to be a matter of individual perspective and opinion. Negative campaign ads can be considered to be morally right as they provide a way through which voters get information on the policy shortcomings and candidate’s weaknesses (Reiter and Matthes 652). It is through the presentation of attack ads that the transparency and accountability of the aspirants are made known. Other benefits include highlighting policy differences, voter empowerment and engagement, and testing candidate’s resilience.
Transparency and Accountability
A more apparent bureaucratic climate is created when the background information, policy positions, and deeds of the contestants are made public. Transparency is promoted as key information about the aspirant is provided. Past policy positions, statements, or actions that are unknown to the general population are usually made known.
Verifiable facts are the ones scrutinized and the weaknesses are identified to discredit the political opponents. It is through these attack ads that voters can make informed decisions based on the strengths and weaknesses presented in these reports (Byulegenova et al. 196). A culture of openness and accountability is created among civic applicants as they know that any slight shortcomings can be highlighted during the campaign period.
Attack ads can help in determining whether candidates are trustworthy or not. When opponents scrutinize an applicant’s track record or their public statements, they hold them accountable for their doings (Passyn et al. 4). Making these kinds of information available to the masses gives the voters the upper hand in assessing if the aspirant’s actions align with their expectations.
The candidates’ accountability is further challenged when questions are asked, prompting them to provide clear explanations on the issues addressed (Passyn et al. 5). Providing unknown information to the vote caster offers the opportunity to make a decision based on having a clear picture of the candidate’s identity. The effectiveness of this scrutiny relies on the accuracy of the data presented to the voters.
Highlighting Policy Differences
The main focus of having attack ads is to establish a clear difference between one opponent and the other. Attention may be placed on the significant policy differences present between aspirants, thus inducing discussions (Reiter and Matthes 651). Through this, the voters get an opportunity to debate on vital matters that affect them directly and not only on the personalities of the candidates. Contrasting the policy positions further helps vote casters make choices based on the understanding of the potential consequences of the stated policies (Diakopoulos and Johnson 17). Aspirants can be forced to provide detailed explanations of their stands on particular topics and elaborate on their strategy suggestions. Informed decision-making is thus attained as the voters can select the candidate that has beliefs that align with theirs.
Voter education is consequently encouraged when policy differences are presented. A knowledgeable electorate is thus created since the vote casters will be aiming at understanding the aspirant’s strategy. Knowing the potential impacts of a proposed policy will help voters evaluate its relevance to key issues like healthcare and the economy (Byulegenova et al. 191). As a result of the highlight presented to the public, voters can make decisions based on a clear comprehension of the outcomes to be expected from the policy strategies of the aspirants. Highlighting policy differences can result in shaping public priorities as their focus is influenced by the information presented in the ads.
Voter Engagement and Empowerment
Political campaigns can influence voter turnout during elections. Attack ads give rise to political debates, which might trigger the attention of the electorates (Passyn et al. 27). As an opponent provides clarity on the scrutinized information presented to discredit them, voters can assess their feedback and not whom to vote for.
Attack ads normally contain hidden information that an aspirant would not like to be public. Publicizing these particulars restrains aspirants from providing a one-sided account. Great attention can be drawn by these findings prompting the participation of the public. When voters get access to contrasting information of the aspirants, they get the needed data to make illuminated selections.
Campaigns result in voter empowerment as they get exposed to new information that they lack thus filling their knowledge gap about specific candidates. Great civic involvement in elections is likely to be experienced due to the high awareness created by the ads. When voters are well-informed, they are likely to participate in the process either through campaigns, voting, or debating (Postman).
Vote casters are further empowered to hold the applicants accountable for their posts. During debates, public discourse is encouraged, thus allowing the voters to ask contestants questions directly (Diakopoulos and Johnson 12). The positive interaction between the people and the political aspirants fosters a sophisticated electorate where a higher level of civic participation and entitlement is attained.
Testing Candidates’ Resilience
Ethicality is further presented through the use of negative ads that test a candidate’s resilience. Attack ads present civic participants with highlights of the contended facets, errors, and shortcomings of a contender’s personal history (Reiter and Matthes 666). The way contestants react to these reprovals discloses their character traits.
Tenacity is critical among aspirants as it enables them to show the public whether they can be able to handle condemnation and pressure without resorting to unprincipled approaches (Grüning and Schubert 3). Voters’ perceptions can be influenced based on how a candidate responds to the accusations made against them. When contestants respond calmly and provide background information on the claims made while still revolving around their agenda then translucency is attained.
People perceive politics as being a dirty game where each member aims at discrediting the other to remain at the top or win political sits. Apart from testing an aspirant’s composure, attack ads can provide an opportunity for growth and change (Passyn et al. 24). Resilient candidates can learn from the errors identified by contemplating and accepting them.
Through this, high levels of self-awareness are presented to the voters, thus promoting credibility and trust. Staying on message and avoiding getting derailed by the presented claims exhibit a powerful devotion to their political objective (Grüning and Schubert 11). Although attack ads can be perceived to be ethically right based on the stated impacts above, they are also associated with negativity hence being unethical.
Pessimistic Perspective on Negative Ads
Deterioration of Civic Discourse
Political parties and aspirants spend a huge portion of their budget on attack ads as they believe it is effective. Attack ads are repeatedly criticized as they promote electorate skepticism and orchestrate decision-making. Negative ads have been used by presidential campaigners like George Bush to navigate their way to success.
In the 1988 elections, Michael Dukakis was discredited by his opponent, who made use of these advertisements (Sandal). In the polls, Bush was behind by seventeen points, but after using this tactic, he influenced voters’ decisions and emerged victorious in the election (Sandal). The unprincipled nature of attack ads was evident and resulted in a negative political culture. Negative attack ads cause a lack of interest in politics, which results in low participation in elections.
Misinformation and Distortion
The main aim of using negative ads is to defame an opponent and limit their publicity. Wrong information or that which is not entirely verified is sometimes used, thus displaying the unscrupulous nature of politics. The inaccurate details presented to the public can mislead vote casters and sabotage the constitutional exercise (Reiter and Matthes 653). When presented with half-truths or manipulated facts, voters can be swayed and make choices based on false information. Public trust is impacted when electorates become aware of the spreading of untrue findings. Hence, the prevalence of cynicism among the voters as the credibility of the political parties is damaged (Passyn et al. 5).
The overall integrity of the legislative system is impacted negatively when aspirants emphasize more on negative politics rather than engaging in honest and transparent dialogue (Sandal). Predetermined beliefs can be fueled more by these distortions thus forcing individuals to a much more divided political culture. Unethical tactics normalizing is a future issue likely to be experienced if aspirants view it being an effective strategy for winning elections.
Conclusion
The moral uprightness of political attack ads remains a controversial topic in the political field. Politicians use these advertisements as a means of engagement and communication with the electorates. The ethicality of the ads depends on the accuracy and transparency of the information presented, thus promoting a sophisticated civic involvement. Attack ads offer true findings to the public, hence adhering to the principles of political ethics. When correct and true information about candidates is presented, transparency and accountability are attained. Voters, in turn, get empowered and actively engage in the campaign through voting, debating, or discussing the policies presented.
Education is attained as electorates get access to information that was otherwise unavailable hence using it to make informed decisions. Consequently, attack ads result in negative political influences as they contain half-truths or misinformation. The integrity of the democratic process is thus impacted negatively as mistrust and negativity are developed. The virtuous representation of attack ads entirely depends on the accuracy of the information presented.
Works Cited
Byulegenova, Bibigul, et al. “Negative Campaigning in Modern Elections: Ethical and Legal Aspects.” Politics & Policy, vol. 50, no. 2, 2022, pp. 186–200. Web.
Diakopoulos, Nicholas, and Deborah Johnson. “Anticipating and Addressing the Ethical Implications of Deepfakes in the Context of Elections.” SSRN Electronic Journal, vol. 20, no. 10, 2019, pp. 1–27. Web.
Grüning, David J., and Thomas W. Schubert. “Emotional Campaigning in Politics: Being Moved and Anger in Political Ads Motivate to Support Candidate and Party.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 12, no. 2. 2022, pp. 1–15. Web.
Passyn, Kirsten, et al. “When Politics Disgust: Emotional versus Rational Processing of Attack Ads.” Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, vol. 1, no. 1, Haworth Press. 2022, pp. 1–34. Web.
Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Showbusiness. 20th ed., Penguin Books, 2005. Web.
Reiter, Franz, and Jörg Matthes. “‘The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly’: A Panel Study on the Reciprocal Effects of Negative, Dirty, and Positive Campaigning on Political Distrust.” Mass Communication and Society, vol. 25, no. 5, 2021, pp. 649–672. Web.
Sandal, Ravdeep. “Negative Ads in Politics: A Necessary Evil?” NATO Association of Canada. 2020. Web.