Political Ads To Hit New Low This Year Despite Revived Presidential Image

July 29, 1996

GAINESVILLE — Independence Day is one of the best things to happen to the American presidency in a long time, although the coming onslaught of sleazy political spots may negate the film’s impact.

So says Marilyn Roberts, a University of Florida assistant professor of journalism and communications who has spent her academic career dissecting political advertising and news coverage.

The blockbuster movie is striking a chord in the American people because it depicts the president as savior, rallying the world to quash an alien invasion, Roberts says.

This role reminds her of the past glory of the presidency. Before the dawn of modern TV campaign spots in 1952, the image of Franklin Roosevelt epitomized the presidency. FDR reigned as father figure, world leader, visionary, commander in chief, great communicator and keeper of world peace.

That image has declined, and today’s presidency faces more indomitable enemies than extraterrestrials in the weeks ahead, Roberts says.

Those foes are media consultants, whom she predicts are likely to take political advertising to new lows this election year.

Advertising’s power is growing as fewer voters read newspapers and watch national television news, Roberts’ research shows.

Voters pay more attention to image than anything else, Roberts found in studying Clayton Williams’ unsuccessful campaign against then Texas Gov. Ann Richards in 1990. Of 238 voters, nine out of 10 cast their ballots for the candidate they liked most or would want to have as a friend. “Image has become more important as party affiliation has become less important to many voters,Roberts says. When presidential candidates trash each other, they diminish the stature of the presidency, she adds.

“We need to not lose the symbolic power of the president as the force that unifies an increasingly diverse nation.”

Negativity has its limits as a political tool, Roberts contends. While Bill Clinton struck a nearly equal balance of airing positive and negative commercials in the 1992 campaign, George Bush went overboard on negative spots.

“Voters accept, or at least tolerate, ads that compare candidates, but they have little patience for vicious personal attacks,” Roberts says.

One of the dirtiest campaigns dates back to 1828. Andrew Jackson’s opponents used handbills to accuse Jackson of adultery, ordering executions, stabbing a man in the back and murdering one of his own soldiers.

If nasty campaigns are not new, then why are we so bothered by them?

“What bothers us is there is so much information bombarding us, and so much of it is negative,” Roberts says. “As the presidency gets torn down, it shrinks and we lose faith in the most important institution that holds this country together.”

The press gets caught up in the clash of images, giving scant attention to issues, Roberts contends. “We’re all into the horse race and strategy.”

Increasingly, campaign consultants determine what the news media cover. “Political consultants use pseudo-events to manipulate the campaign visuals which appear on the nightly news,” Roberts says. “The upcoming political conventions will be carefully orchestrated events, not deliberative sessions.”

Roberts is not surprised that Americans respond so strongly to the positive depiction of the presidency in Independence Day. “Perhaps it is the positive reinforcement we need before the fall mudslinging starts in full force,” she says.