While learning about several Presidential elections and the dos and don'ts of how to have a good relationship with the media, one aspect that stood out to me was smear campaigns and how the media is involved with them. Back when the first few presidential elections started, candidates would verbally and directly attack their opponents, and what they said was a lot blunter; for instance, when Thomas Jefferson was running against John Adams, he called him a "blind, bald, crippled, toothless man who is a hermaphroditic character." These "smear campaigns" at the time consisted of brutal and verbal disputes between the candidates. But as more technological advancements were made, candidates began to rely on political ads as a way to attack their opponents. This is not to say that people running would stop attacking their opponents, but there was a clear push towards letting the ad get the attacks and refutations across. And as we saw with the JFK vs. Nixon election, the media became increasingly involved and either helped or hurt a candidate significantly. They would also skew the public's perception of a certain candidate by twisting their words or advertising specific pictures to blow something out of proportion. With the exception of maybe President Trump, as Mr. Stewart pointed out, most politicians today are not as brutal verbally, but they have now shifted to using these smear tactics. Learning about this made me think about the legality of smear campaigns and verbal attacks. Technically under the freedom of speech, if they do not incite hate or harm, candidates are allowed to say what they want. But do you guys think that these attacks should just remain verbal and between the two candidates? Or should politicians be able to use politic ads and the media as a way to bolster their campaign? How do you feel about candidates getting hurt when they don't take part in smear campaigns and refutations? (as we saw in Michael Dukakis' case)
source: https://allthatsinteresting.com/dirtiest-us-presidential-campaign-tactics
This is a really good point. Although, when you mentioned that these things don't incite hate or harm, I think this is very subjective. Smear campaigns often contain fake or exaggerated information, and if a candidate could prove that this was negatively affecting them, could they not sue for libel? (similar to the Fox V. Franken case where they tried to say that it would hurt fox's reputation) I think it would be quite difficult to put this idea into practice, but I think if someone did it, there would be a precedent to put some limits on the extent to which a candidate can lie about their opponent to try and change public opinion.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I don't think that smear tactics should be apart of the campaign to become a president, I don't think that there is any way of stopping them from happening. Yes, in an idealized world, politicians wouldn't act like this but they do and there isn't really anything that is being put forth to stop that. As long as both parties have the opportunity to trash each other equally, I don't think that it's unfair for these campaigns to happen. But do I think that it's ethical? No. I feel bad for Dukakis as he was taking the moral high road, but that isn't what Americans wanted at that point. I think the state of politics should change so that this doesn't happen, but I doubt that there is any solution that would stick.
ReplyDelete