“Negative Doesn’t Work: I’m Turning the Damn Channel.” That phrase, well, let’s just say I’m hoping it becomes one of the most remembered slogans from the 2012 election. Granted it’s not exactly, “I Like Ike,” or “Country First,” but it is an accurate reflection of how Americans feel a few months into the mud-slinging match that is the presidential election campaign.
This year is, by far, the worst. Already, 70% of the campaign ads that have aired were negative. For the same period in 2008 that figure stood at 9.1 %.
[More from Mashable: Today’s Top Stories: John McAfee Arrested, LinkedIn to Buy SlideShare]
I think we can all agree that it has started to feel like the American electorate is caught between two mack trucks, one from each party, on a collision course. But unlike previous presidential campaigns, voters have a tool at their disposal that can change the tone of these candidates. Citizens can use social networks to take aim at this around-the-clock negative advertising. And I think they should.
[More from Mashable: Why Automating Social Media Marketing Could Hurt Facebook]
If they don’t, we might end up with a real-life version of a recent Economist cover. It’s a caricature of Gov. Mitt Romney wearing a baseball uniform throwing a hand grenade to President Barack Obama, who is waiting with a baseball bat covered in nails. This image conveys just how ugly the general election may get, despite the fact that virtually every poll tells us that the public is already tired of its tone and tactics.
There is, however, a disconnect between stated and actual attitudes. On the one hand, the public doesn’t like dirty tactics. On the other hand, large swathes of it support the Super PACS that pay for this bad behavior. In fact, they pile the money on.
And it’s a big pile, my friends. Moody’s investor service predicted that $3 billion will be spent on ads in 2012, with both presidential candidates spending a combined $2 billion on advertisements. The broadcast and cable television networks and radio stations will gracefully take the huge infusion of advertising dollars. As will many online platforms. Unless they have a compelling reason to rethink this.
If we take our new digital populism seriously, then we should start a campaign on Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, and Tumblr. We need to publicly declare that we want an election that focuses on the issues, not detracts from them. We need to demand that our candidates rethink their attacks; treat voters like adults, and exercise real leadership.
And if voters get involved, then you can bet media companies will pay attention. Of course, they have a First Amendment right and obligation to sell ads to whomever they want, with minimal limitation as to taste and decency. But if they feel that the onslaught of negative advertising is affecting their ratings and viewer loyalty, they will be encouraged to be part of the solution.
The young and tech savvy should take a page from the many groups creating change around the world. They should develop a digital badge that serves as an expression of their strong opposition to negative advertising. It could be included in all email exchanges with political campaigns and news media, almost like a union bug. As part of this effort, they could also create a YouTube Channel and post the ten most offensive ads of the season, with weekly updates.
Will this work? We should try to find out. This is the time for digital populism to have a sustaining influence on how our political process evolves. Because that’s what we want from it: evolution. Now wouldn't that be a change we could believe in.
Image courtesy of iStockphoto, cmannphoto
This story originally published on Mashable here.
No comments:
Post a Comment