Sportsmanship and Smear Campaigns

By Jack Furlong

Founder/President/CEO

With the American election season in the rearview mirror, everyone with a television, a radio, and/or access to the internet can breathe a sigh of relief that the attack ads and political media campaigns will disappear until the next autumn approaches.  It is during this downtime that the science and deception of these unsportsmanlike advertisements can be easily revealed and presented to the public with the hope that better understanding of the process can ease the burdens and the stress of the next year’s cycle.
 
(Before continuing, it is always necessary to remind readers that OSIP does not endorse any political candidate or party, and the views, thoughts, and opinions of those associated with OSIP do not necessarily reflect the organization.)
 
Whether the term “smear campaign” or the term “attack ad” is used is irrelevant.  The purpose of these spots is the same:  use anything in the public forum to twist the truth and make a particular opponent look less desirable.  The tactic is used equally by all sides and all parties; in fact, many political action committees that are not technically associated with specific candidates are using these protocols arguably more than the candidates and their campaigns themselves.
 
The process looks something like this…
 
Candidate X is being interviewed at a public event.  A question is posed by the moderator to the candidate:  “What are your thoughts on how your state’s budget can be better balanced?”
 
The candidate responds:  “I think it’s a complex issue that will require politicians on both sides of the aisle to sit down and discuss what our fiscal priorities should be over the next four years.  I don’t think it’s as simple as demanding we raise your property taxes to bring in more money.  I don’t think it’s as simple as demanding we cut programs like the arts.  I know some states have considered things like a 10% sales tax across the board, but that doesn’t necessarily translate to our state.  I wish I had a more concrete solution, but our previous administrations have had to battle corruption that have left us in a tough and sad situation.”
 
Seems innocent, right?
 
Meanwhile, the people hired by Candidate Y (or the groups and committees that are paid to support Candidate Y) to make Candidate X look less desirable are licking their chops over this answer.  Candidate Y’s team will take the audio clip from this interview and edit it so that soundbites from this interview can be used in different contexts.  Some of those might include:
 
“We raise property taxes to bring in more money.”
 
“We cut programs like the arts.”
 
“A 10% sales tax across the board.”
 
“I wish I had a more concrete solution.”
 
Take a moment to read those small clips outside of the original speech.  It’s easy to see how a lack of context makes these independent lines seem so different than how they were originally used!
 
The team putting together an attack ad against Candidate X can easily create a new ad with these.  A voiceover will narrate while these clips are conveniently interjected:
 
“Think Candidate X is going to save you money if elected?  Think again!  ‘We raise property taxes to bring in more money.’  That’s right, Candidate X said that!  What else could be implemented if that candidate is elected?  ‘A 10% sales tax across the board.’  Are you kidding?  ‘I wish I had a more concrete solution.’  We can’t afford to elect Candidate X!”
 
In a matter of moments, it’s incredibly easy to take an honest and innocent answer given by a candidate and use the audio of the response to formulate an ad that can be used to smear the candidate.
 
From the perspective of this discussion, our consciences might scream about how easy it is to see the farce.  However, in the moment as these ads are aired, most people don’t take the time to question whether a candidate said those words in the context they are being presented.  The reactions that are subconsciously created due to these ads get stored in the psyches of those who hear them, and they gnaw at preconceived notions that people hold.  Rather than helping constituents make informed decisions, the ads try to create a mob mentality that builds conflict in political competition.  Rather than simply cheering for their candidate, they cause rifts in families and relationships while keenly omitting the possibility that honest and open discussion might reveal more common ground than originally thought.
 
Unfortunately, there’s no stopping this.  These ads can’t go away with our freedom of speech.  If Candidate X were to sue for defamation, an attorney could easily argue that the ad in question never said anything that was not true.  Candidate X did say each of the clips used:  there’s no law against implying a potential different context.  And there’s also no law against suggesting opinions.
 
What can we do if we cannot use law to prevent this?  We can empower those who will listen to lead by example.  When the next election approaches and these ads surface again, take the time to ignore them until you can do your own individual and unbiased research to see what the true context of a quote is.  Remember that two things can be true at the same time:  you can still hold your political beliefs and choose to withhold judgment based on these claims until you have had the time to do your own research.