(How long until we are done with this election?)
I spent the weekend at my folks’ house and the only good thing I have to say about the political ads running on TV there is that they were new to me. Granted, we all get the same Wisconsin gubernatorial race ads that try to paint Democrat David Crowley as a tax-and-spend, illegal-immigrant-loving, healthcare failure or paint Republican Tom Tiffany as a Trump-loving, self-serving, BS-wielding MAGA robot.
However, since my parents are in a different House district, I was spared the attack ads I normally see back home and instead got some new attack ads that explained why each candidate was horrible.
Almost every study or poll you see says that a supermajority of people in the United States hate, hate, HATE negative political ads. However, they also dominate the airwaves, even as viewers say they have already made up their minds and don’t believe most of what they see in political ads.
Research indicates that this is because the ads work, but maybe not in the way you would normally think.
Campaigns are often defined by a few basic issues and those issues vary based on a number of factors. In some cases, those factors are personally attached to the candidate (adultery, criminal record) while in others, it’s about the broader society (economy, “family values,” drug legalization, crime). These ads help make those issues salient, or in other words, they harp on a topic enough to make you think about it first and foremost when it comes to a candidate or a race.
The underlying theory that can help us understand this is called agenda setting, which explains how and why these kinds of ads “work.” The theory was developed by Max McCombs and Donald Shaw in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when they studied how media reports influenced potential voters in elections. Very simply, their research found that media content was not very successful at telling people what to think, but the media was exceptionally valuable in telling people what to think ABOUT.
For example, we have a lot of ads out here that try to paint Republican candidates as Trump-following boot-lickers who prioritize the rich above everyone else. You might or might not believe that to be the case about any particular candidate, but agenda setting says that, thanks to all these ads, you are thinking about that as a key issue in the race.
In looking at the ads out here versus those at my folks’ house, I got to see how they differed in terms of the “issues” people were using ads to try to agenda set for voters. Out here, it’s a lot of “economy” ads, with a push on how the person is or isn’t “for you as a regular, normal voter.” I still got some of that at my folks’ house:
However, I got a lot of “this candidate is too radical and scary to elect” ads as well:
(Mitchell Berman is your worst nightmare… Or something like that…)
If you look back to the 2024 presidential election cycle, transgender issues were being agenda-set with ads that noted “CANDIDATE X is for they/them, not for you!” In short, the attack ads were trying to make the case that a candidate’s support for transgender individuals made them unfit to serve. To whatever degree you believe that to be true or not is up to you, according to agenda setting theory, but instead of thinking about 8,012 other issues, you’re thinking about a candidate’s record on transgender rights.
EXERCISE TIME: Go through the more localized video/audio political ads of your area (U.S. House, State House, State Senate) and see what issues keep coming up from supporters of each political party. See how many of these things are part of what you feel the election will swing on. Also, talk with the class about the degree to which these issues have set the agenda for the political discussions in your area.
Be nice and don’t punch anyone.
