Newt: Do as I say, NOT as I do!

Today's Golden Flip Flop Award Goes to Newt!

Newt Gingrich has a bad case of "do as I say, but not as I do."
His campaign has been sending out letters to TV stations warning them against airing a commercial paid for by a super PAC supporting Mitt Romney that make Gingrich look bad. According to the letter, the campaign claims the ad is "fundamentally NOT TRUE."
Whether or not a political attack ad is wording things in such a way as to bend, meld, or spin the truth is not the point here. 
The point?

Newt doesn't like it when someone attacks him and he can't (afford to) rebut it! And he really hates it when someone uses his track record against him.
So what is the big bad ad Newt doesn't want you to see?



Is it really all that bad?
Or is it as he says "fundamentally not true?"
Let's take a look-
The ad states that Gingrich co-sponsored a 1989 bill called the "Global Warming Prevention Act," with  Nancy Pelosi "that would have given $60 million a year to a U.N. program supporting China's brutal one-child policy."
The bill was introduced while Gingrich was in office, but it never passed. The bill was never about China's one child policy. As the title states, it was a bill about global warming measures, including fuel standards for cars and alternative energy, and sending money developing countries to promote clean energy standards.
The bill also proposed sending money to the U.N. Population Fund, some of which would go to China, but the bill specifically stated that no funds should go towards backing involuntary sterilization, abortion, or family planning coercion (in other words, China's birth control policies).
Gingrich did co-sponsor the bill with Pelosi. 144 House members who also sponsored the bill, according to PolitiFact. Considering that is nearly half the House, it is surprising the bill never passed.
The Gingrich camp is calling this ad libelous and false. And is threatening to sue the stations for defamation if they do air it.
Pretty tough words for a man who's own PAC ran this ad-



Really what it comes down to is Newt's trying to get some attention, because everyone has forgotten him and moved on lately. He's attempting to do something shocking and daring again, and it probably won't work. It will most likely backfire, even if the stations do remove the ad, as people go to YouTube to see what it is all about. And then the news channels will be forced to run a story, showing the ad, talking about whether or not it was true. Sure, Romney won't look good either, but does Newt really want the climate and Pelosi issues to come back up?
Maybe he does, because in Newt's world, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Political Ads- do they work?

Political ads are an unwelcome and inevitable part of the political cycle. If you live in a key state, you get inundated with them. Campaigns spend millions upon millions on these unwelcome ads, which begs the question- do they work??
In a time where "the public" feels that campaigning is getting more and more negative, many people feel that political ads are at the root of the unethical campaigning. So why would a candidate choose to air ads that leave viewers with a bad taste? No one has ever turned on the TV and said, "Oh good! Another negative campaign ad! Woohoo!"
The subject has not been researched in depth, but what little research there has been suggests that candidates who run negative ads are more likely to win. But then there is also research that indicates  running negative ads makes a candidate more likely to lose.
What is really interesting is that some studies have show that negative advertising results in lower voter turnout.   ("The Effectiveness of Negative Political Advertisements: A Meta-analytic Review" by Lau, Sigelman, Heldman, & Babbitt in the American Political Science Review.)

According to a bipartisan survey commission by the Project on Campaign Conduct, voters do not like political ads, and do not trust candidates and/or campaigns.

Among the findings-
More than eight in ten voters say attack-oriented campaigning is unethical, undermines democracy,  lowers voter turnout, and produces less ethical elected officials.
Seventy-six percent of voters think negative campaigning produces less-ethical and less trustworthy
leaders.
More than 80 percent of voters think this type of campaigning makes people less likely to vote.

Highlights from the Survey

Of those surveyed:

• 59% believe that all or most candidates deliberately twist the truth.
• 39% believe that all or most candidates deliberately lie to voters.
• 43% believe that most or all candidates deliberately make unfair attacks on their opponents. Another 45% believe that some candidates do.
• 67% say they can trust the government in Washington only some of the time or never.
• 87% are concerned about the level of personal attacks in today's political campaigns.

Interestingly, voters are also capable of distinguishing between what they feel are fair and unfair "attacks" in a political campaign. At least 57% of those surveyed believe negative information provided by one candidate about his/her opponent is relevant and useful when it relates to the following:

• Talking one way and voting another
• Not paying taxes
• Accepting campaign contributions from special interests
• Current drug or alcohol abuse
• His or her voting record as an elected official

At the same time, at least 63% of those surveyed indicated the following kinds of information should be considered out of bounds:

• Lack of military service
• Past personal financial problems
• Actions of a candidate's family members
• Past drug or alcohol abuse

If voters feel that way, why do campaigns continue to run negative attack ads?
Because they work. They may not work on every voter, but they work on some voters. Case in point- Newt Gingrich's loss in Iowa. One minute he was on top, the next he wasn't- and it all corresponded to negative political ads.

Negative ads work because they confuse the viewer. A positive message isn't memorable. If Candidate Positive puts out an a happy, positive ad touting his/her shiny record. Candidate Opposite puts out a negative ad. The viewer may be turned off by the negative ad, but more than that it leaves a question mark in the viewer's head- who do you believe? If the viewer is already set on a candidate, and really likes Candidate Positive, the ad will only serve to reinforce that he/she doesn't like Candidate Opposite. The ad doesn't work on someone who has made up his/her mind. But it can confuse the undecided voter and keep them from picking Candidate Positive. 

NBC objects to Romney using old footage- but should they?

Open source and widely distributed picture of Tom Brokaw requiring no royalties be paid.

NBC has objected to the use of their material in an ad put out by the Mitt Romney campaign. (Before Romney fans pull a Newt screaming "Liberal Elite Media!" please keep reading to get to the point.) Whether or not you believe news outlets are biased (Liberal Elite Media! Vast Left Wing Conspiracy!), this brings up an interesting point about media bias, balanced journalism, and when the media becomes the story and not just the reporter of the story.
NBC and Tom Brokaw have objected to the use of their material in an ad by the Romney campaign. While this may feel biased to some, the ad is worth considering-



Tom Brokaw is a long-time veteran of television reporting. Unarguably, one of the most revered in his field. About the ad he has said, “I am extremely uncomfortable with the extended use of my personal image in this political ad. I do not want my role as a journalist compromised for political gain by any campaign.”

The Romney ad uses an NBC News report from Jan. 21, 1997, the day Gingrich was reprimanded by Congress for using tax-exempt money for political purposes and giving the House Ethics Committee false information.  Gingrich is only shown in the background in a head shot, while Brokaw's image is used for 28 seconds of the 30 second spot.
As far as political ads go, this is one of the most fascinating ones from a message sender's point of view. It takes an historical event, and the actual news reporting of the time, clearly in context, to share the message. No one can argue that anything was taken out of context, edited, etc. It is effective because it is so simple and straight-forward. This sort of thing is rarely done effectively in commercials. But it works extremely well in this particular ad. The viewer has no reason to believe that anything in it is dishonest or manipulated (as compared to nearly all other campaign ads ever), and because of Brokaw's lengthy and notable career, he is considered very trustworthy.
But Brokaw doesn't like that his image is being used for political gain. And yes, it is being used for political gain- there is no tap-dancing around that. But is he right? Is it compromising his role as a journalist?