Attack Ads

There has been a lot of buzz in CDN politics in recent days over the new Conservative "attack" ads aimed squarely at Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. Most mainstream media commentary, I think it is fair to say, has been critical of the ads, while Conservatives and a relative handful of others have said they are fair game.

I am not a specialist in advertising per se, but I understand the basic strategic intent of ads such as these. Like all ads, they are designed to influence opinion and shape perception of whatever the object of the ad may be. In most cases, the intent is to leave a positive impression of the object of the ad. In these cases, however, the intent is precisely the opposite. The intent of attack ads is to create fear, uncertainty and doubt in the minds of the audience - to confirm and amplify the most negative suspicions certain undecided segments of the population might have about whatever or whomever is the focus of the ad. Importantly, perhaps most importantly in the eyse of some, is the proven fact that when done well, attack ads work. The relatively recent ads attacking Stephane Dion are a clear case in point.

So, in that context, here are a few thoughts on and around this latest round of anti-Iggy attack advertising and its effectiveness:

1. Yes, attack ads work, but does that really mean we should use them? While they may help win campaigns in the short term, they also breed deep cynicism in the electorate over the long term. Ulltimately, no political party is well served by voter apathy and cynicism.

2. The angry, sarcastic style and tone of these ads captures the voice of the Tory stalwart, who would never vote for Iggy in a million years. In so doing. it amplifies the most negative popular perceptions of the Conservatives and their leader Stephen Harper - crass, mean-spiritted, overly competitive, selfish, etc...

3. On the flip side, the ads fail to take a more persuasive, questioning, thoughtful tone - in other words, a tone that would better resonate with Canadians harbouring legitimate questions about the loyalty and commitment of this leader-in-waiting. It leaves me wondering exactly who it is that fits the audience segment these ads were designed for?

In the end, only time will tell. People, whose opinions I respect, have shared with me strong arguments both in favour and opposed to these ads. What do you think? Will these ads be successful? Will they fail? Either way, should we be striving for a higher tone in our discourse that does away with these kinds of ads?

Please share your thoughts.