Attack Ads Article

Attack Ads Article                          Jen Kallin

1. I think that attack ads in general are a pathetic way of trying to make themselves look better. If a person is such a good president candidate or product, then why spend time and money to make other people or products look bad? Find positive aspects of what is wanted to be promoted, and work off of that. To me, all they do is make rumors and they have to be careful because demoralizing someone else can cause trouble to the accuser.

2. I think attack ads are necessary to a certain degree in a president's campaign. Sometimes, when they have a weak spot, they need to fill it by turning it around on their antagonist and bringing out the worst points of them. With the Romney campaign saying how the Obama campaigns have been in the political gutter and saying how Obama needs to learn to be American, that is just rude and unnecessary to me. The attack ads make false rumors, and it can confuse the people who listen to them. That either means people who listen should actually read up on what they are hearing, or that attack ads should acknowledge people's lack of intelligence and not make up ideas about the other candidate.

3. I would say that attack ads have a play in today's race because they exist for a reason. Not all of what attack ads say are untrue. Commercials such as "Elizabeth Warren isn't who she says she is" and "Scott Brown is not in it for us" is all people hear from day to day. This is one of the only ways that the candidates oppose each other. Attack ads draw away the attention of the real issues between candidates. They make people think and warp their opinions. Everything is based on facts, but when attack ads throw in rumors, how does the American public know if these rumors are true or not? They confuse people, and what people hear in commercials plays a role in the opinion about that person. Is Elizabeth Warrren for big businesses? No one knows what to believe.