The gates have barely opened and already the contestants are jockeying for position, sticking their spurs into each other as well as their steeds. Announcers on the sidelines shout brief blurbs about which jabs gain the biggest lead and which contenders are losing momentum. The crowd struggles to watch. Candidates must do whatever it takes to unseat their rivals, because in this race only one is allowed to cross the finish line.

Politics is a blood sport, where competitors exchange blows in the form of negative ads. Unfortunately it is the spectators who end up taking the hits. I’ve written before about how attack ads embitter the electorate, and I’ve found some fresh insights from Shanto Iyengar, one of the authors of Going Negative, and Joe Klein, the author of Politics Lost.

Iyengar found ample evidence that negative ads alienate voters, especially moderate ones. While I blamed this choice of strategy mostly on the Machiavellian nature of politics, Iyengar attributed it more to the media. Klein echoed Iyengar’s sentiment when he wrote about how political consultants bully their candidates into spouting vapid, market-tested messages that appeal to the press more than the public.

Regardless of why politicians rely on scripted sound bites and vicious attack ads, both authors agree these tactics weaken people’s interest in politics. Considering that the main goal of the media is to attract attention, news organizations would be wise to change the way they cover campaigns. Otherwise the horse race will finish us all.

Filed under: Media, Politcs