When an Explosive Charge Is Not Handled With Care
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/politics/campaign/09memo.html?pagewanted=all&position=top
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
From the New York Times:
The media finds it easier -- and more importantly, cheaper and thus more profitable -- to turn every charge into a "he says, she says" story. Voters say they don't like negative ads, but people assume that where there's smoke, there's fire; and studies have repeatedly shown people respond strongly to negative campaigning. Analyses of the substance of the attacks are buried deep inside the newspapers, while the inflamatory rhetoric of the charges are put above the fold, on the front page.
As long as this tactic works, candidates and their surrogates are not going to avoid outrageous charges. Such avoidance would be irrational, since it would just lead to them being defeated by candidates who have no such scruples. The way to take the air out of these smear tactics is to focus on the truth of claims, and to quickly dismiss stories that are contradicted by the evidence. That should be on the front page. Candidates whose surrogates repeatedly resurrect already disproved charges should be criticized. Repeatedly. On the front page.
Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that the nation was more likely to "get hit again" by terrorists if John Kerry was elected was one of the toughest attacks launched in a presidential election in 40 years.As the election approaches, the attacks grow more bitter, from both sides. Personally, I think the Bush aligned forces have made the more specious claims so far -- the anti-Kerry Swift Vet claims have been large disproved by nearly every major newspaper in the country -- but I don't think there's anything inherently Republican or Democratic about baseless vicious campaign techniques. Next election, or next week, Democrats may make the more bogus charge.
But Mr. Cheney's latest assault on Mr. Kerry, which startled Democrats and Republicans alike, raised a central question even in this notably ferocious presidential campaign: Is it possible for a candidate to go too far, and alienate the very voters he is trying to court?
The media finds it easier -- and more importantly, cheaper and thus more profitable -- to turn every charge into a "he says, she says" story. Voters say they don't like negative ads, but people assume that where there's smoke, there's fire; and studies have repeatedly shown people respond strongly to negative campaigning. Analyses of the substance of the attacks are buried deep inside the newspapers, while the inflamatory rhetoric of the charges are put above the fold, on the front page.
As long as this tactic works, candidates and their surrogates are not going to avoid outrageous charges. Such avoidance would be irrational, since it would just lead to them being defeated by candidates who have no such scruples. The way to take the air out of these smear tactics is to focus on the truth of claims, and to quickly dismiss stories that are contradicted by the evidence. That should be on the front page. Candidates whose surrogates repeatedly resurrect already disproved charges should be criticized. Repeatedly. On the front page.
PolMach Forums
