More attack campaign ads were broadcast during the last election cycle than ever before, according to an analysis of nearly 5,000 spots by the Wesleyan Media Project.
The center found that 54 percent of political ads that aired between Sept. 1 and election day in House, Senate and gubernatorial races had an “attack” tone. In previous election cycles, levels of negativity were below 50 percent, the study’s authors said.
Republicans were more nasty than Democrats, the Wesleyan project said, with 57 percent of the GOP campaign commercials being negative, compared to 53 percent for Democrats. Ads were most likely to be negative if they were paid for by political parties or independent groups, not the candidates themselves.
Analyzing data on the frequency of advertising – date, time, market, station and the show during which each spot aired - researchers concluded that 2010 was “a record-breaking year for campaign advertising.”
Congressional races spurred close to 1.6 million airings, a 36 percent increase over the 2008 cycle, that cost an estimated $735 million - 61 percent more than was spent in the previous cycle. Gubernatorial elections in 37 states produced 1.3 million airings that cost a combined $697 million.
Advertising in the House races for the seats held by now-former Reps. Tom Perriello (D-Va.) and Mark Schauer (D-Mich.), as well as Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), each cost more than $6 million, the Wesleyan analysis found. Most of that advertising, especially in the two races in which the incumbents lost, was done by Democrats.
The most expensive gubernatorial race was in California, where billionaire Republican Meg Whitman faced off against former Gov. Jerry Brown. There, the media project estimated, more than $118 million was spent on broadcast ads.
In a report accompanying the data, Erica Franklin Fowler, of Wesleyan University, and Travis Ridout of Washington State University, wrote that “…one nontrivial benefit of record spending and record airings this cycle is that many voters, whether they liked it or not, were undoubtedly exposed to more campaign information than in previous election cycles.”
They concluded that voters were “therefore were more likely to make informed choices at the ballot box.”
The tidal wave of negative advertising may have “some good consequences,” Fowler and Ridout wrote. Other studies have indicated that negative ads are more likely to discuss policy issues and “raise the stakes, motivating people to get out and vote.”
The analysis is based on 4,576 ads for congressional and gubernatorial candidates that aired on broadcast networks.
Spending also reached record levels, with broadcast ad spending costing campaigns an estimated $1.4 billion between Jan. 1 and election day, the project found.
“The high volume of advertising in 2010 suggests a greater potential for voter learning,” researchers wrote, “but the high levels of ad negativity could have had both positive and negative consequences on the electorate.”
The Wesleyan Media Project is a successor to the Wisconsin Advertising Project, which tracked political advertising between 1998 and 2008. It is a collaboration between researches at Wesleyan, Bowdoin College and Washington State University.
© 2011 Capitol News POLITCO
No comments:
Post a Comment