According to this CNN reporter, Ron Paul’s ads pointing to political failings of Newt Gingrich is now being defined as “negative”.
Now, I may not be all up to speed on media’s “how to think” instructionals videos, but how’s pointing to strictly political moves and actions by a candidate negative?
If an ad would show his dying wife and him leaving with another woman I’d say that’s while factually true terribly negative.
I understand now why would Newt want to pre-empt so called “negative” ads with his pledge but if you cannot point to his political ideas and present it to market of ideas what else can you do? While one could say it would be effective enough to just show Newt’s face and overimpose something like “Man of Ideas” for 60 seconds how are new political ads supposed to be put together to avoid being “negative” in the sense CNN is now pushing?
Maybe it’s because he once said that anyone who quotes him from a particular speech/video is a falsehood. So if you point out what Newt believes and says, you are somehow lying, which is negative
Well, it’s not a positive ad. Negative ads are those which point out negative things about the opponents. Positive ads are those which point out positive things about the candidate paying for the ad.
Positive Ad: “You should vote for me because…”
Negative Ad: “You should not vote for my opponent because…”
Talking about Newt’s issues clearly falls into the latter category. It’s not a value judgement about the moral goodness or badness of the ad, just that the Ron Paul ad is trying to get support for Ron Paul by talking about the activities of someone who is not Ron Paul.