One of the things that bothers me the most about some advertising is the way in which appeals are made to the consumer's emotions by using different types of fallacious thinking. A good advertisement gets right to the point, focuses on the product or the issues, and can be creative, but honest. A poor advertisement can be deceiving and/or dishonest, but appears adequate at first viewing. Many of the ads that we see on television, newspapers and magazines use faulty thinking in their attempt to sway the public to buy their product. Manipulation is very often a main ploy of these advertisers.
Ad Hominem is one of the types of faulty thinking used in political ads that really troubles me. When an ad attacks a candidate because of something that has happened in his personal life, that has nothing to do with the office that he is running for or the job that he will be required to do, it poisons the well of potential voters. Many people tend to believe what they read or see in a prominent newspaper or on a network television station. It evades the real issues and becomes fallacious because of this.
Another example of faulty thinking often used in political ads is post hoc ergo propter hoc, or false cause and effect. Very often in political campaigns, false cause and effect is used to bad-mouth the previous administration and present all the negative effects that occurred (for example taxes went up, unemployment was at a high, the national debt peaked.) This may have been true, but factors that lead to this situation may have been out of the control of the person, no matter who would have been in office, and that is ignored. The way that many advertisers use words to attract the attention of the reader is sometimes considered short of being ethical. It is not illegal to present a platform in this manner, but it does not and should not be accepted by the reader. The problem is that it will continue to be used to manipulate voters and many voters will continue to listen to these fallacies.