I’m Scott Dickensheets, and I approve this message: Political ads suck. Nonetheless, this election year promises to be insane with them. Let’s ask longtime Nevada political analyst Steve Sebelius about this!
Political ads often seem to skirt, distort, or ignore the truth; what legal guardrails constrain what they can say?
“For broadcast television ads, materially false statements are not allowed, and often you will see candidates’ attorneys sending cease and desist letters to stations asking them to take ads off the air.
“But it should be noted that the outer boundaries of what is acceptable are regularly tested, not unlike the T. Rex in ‘Jurassic Park’ testing the electric fence. If a candidate can argue — reasonably or not — that their ad is either truthful or substantially truthful, it will likely remain on the air.”
Do stations bear any responsibility to ensure the ads are accurate?
“As far as I know, stations do not fact-check the ads prior to them going on the air. The news departments of TV stations will often do ‘fact checks’ on ads, in which they delve into the allegations, check sources, and attempt to divine exactly what is true. And, of course, stations do respond to C&D letters and, in some cases, they actually do take ads down. But that is more rare than most candidates who come under attack would like.”
In a polarizing society, where an open mind seems ever harder to find, how effective are attack ads?
“Those ads are aimed most directly at voters who are uninformed or semi-informed. They also reinforce existing prejudices against or for certain candidates. Studies have shown that negative ads are far more memorable than positive ones, which is why you see more negative ads. And there is, of course, the value of repetition: If you hear often enough that Candidate A wants to take away Social Security or Candidate B is against a minimum wage increase, you may start to believe it.”
