Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Positive spin on negative ads

Tom Flanagan wrote: "One of the most interesting developments in Canadian politics in recent years is the rise of the "permanent campaign," in which political parties seem at all times to be as much preoccupied with campaigning as with government and

Tom Flanagan wrote: "One of the most interesting developments in Canadian politics in recent years is the rise of the "permanent campaign," in which political parties seem at all times to be as much preoccupied with campaigning as with government and opposition." This truism has been explored in the world of political science and communication because perpetual media ads and 24/7 social media are changing not only voter choice but also the national political dialogue.

The race is already heating up in Canada and we still have a relatively long way to go before the writ is dropped. A quick scan of political news shows us that there is a three way race although as I am writing this the Globe and Mail predicts a minority government to either the NDP or the Conservatives.

This reality has changed the playing field for campaigning.

About a year ago, it appeared that Justin Trudeau was the person the Conservatives were going to have beat. The Conservatives have aimed their political arrow at Justin Trudeau. Through a

series of ads, he has been depicted as too young and too inexperienced to handle the job of Prime Minister. They have also posted an online ad that garnered criticism because it invoked disturbing images of ISIS propaganda and a dramatically edited clip of Justin Trudeau's response to a question about dealing with the ISIS.

The Liberals, on the other hand, have set out to vilify the Conservatives and particularly the record of Stephen Harper on "fair and open government." The Liberal ad cites "10 years of secrecy, unfairness, disdain for the Charter and an utter lack of transparency." In another ad, there is a fleeting mention of Thomas Mulcair saying that he "wants us to spend years wrangling over the Constitution" but most of the Liberal ads are aimed at Stephen Harper.

These attack ads have been part of the framing of the pre-writ season and they raise a few important questions. In a recent article, John Ibbitson noted the NDP "surge in the polls" and he asked the question: 'How long will it be before the Conservatives decide they are launching their attack ads against the wrong target?"

I would suggest that the Liberals also need to ask this question. In a study by Anatoliy Gruzd, it has been demonstrated that we engage more in discussions over social media with those who share our opinions/ideology. In many cases, NDP and Liberal supporters speak to one another and target their "hostility towards (their) shared opponent" - in other words, the Conservatives.

But if the Globe and Mail prediction is correct and the outcome of the election will either be a minority Conservative or a minority NDP government then the Liberals also need to rethink their opponent.

How the Liberals fit into the story will be determined by whether or not they remain a viable third party option and can hold or increase their seats. They must carefully assess which side of the centre a Liberal voter may go. For example, a report in the Globe and Mail on Friday suggests that the Liberal support for Bill C-51 might send some Liberals toward the NDP.

All of this discussion leads back to the nature of the ads that will frame the debate: the question is: Are attack ads useful? In a study entitled Are Negative Ads Positive? Political Advertising and the Permanent Campaign published in 2012, Jonathan Rose looks at negative campaigning and he concludes: "...negative advertisements are acceptable if they are about issues, if they provide evidence, if they delineate difference in candidates' positions, and if their focus is relevant to governing."

In fact he says that: "Often because negative ads are so polarizing, the mass media and voters are more likely to scrutinize them for evidence than they do positive ads..."

Rose continues: "If more evidence can be found in negative ads than in positive ads, it follows that voters are better served by an information-rich negative campaign than by a positive campaign that does little to engage issues or ideas."

If Rose's analysis is correct then negative ad campaigns may not disparage the democratic process. They may not be pleasant but as long as they fit the criteria that Rose lays out, negative ads may provide us more information upon which to assess leadership and policy.