[Re: Opinion: Scared Into Submission or Frightened Away. Direct Newsline, Oct. 28, 2004]:
Bob Cargill writes that “At the end of the day, however, I have to believe that one set of negative messaging…will have simply offset the other” as far as native advertising is concerned. I don’t believe that’s true. The advantage of negative advertising goes to the party that is trying to obscure the truth; by putting the argument on a level plane, the meta-message of negative advertising is “who can you believe, since both sides are so vehemently enthusiastic about their positions?” Somewhere, the facts are lost — the truth is lost. That is particularly so when one of the candidates claims that he never reads newspapers; the underlying message is that the facts have no meaning.
I’m aware that one man’s negative advertising is another man’s truth, so to speak, and that the issue is incredibly difficult to resolve. but I would maintain that the country will continue to be polarized as long as the facts of each matter are submerged to political expediency and the absence of truth is glorified by “spiritual values”.
Bob Castle
New York City
Network
