To Bates and Diamond say if u takes away TV campaign then that's like taking politics from campaigns. "TV is the modern medium of politics; it cannot and shouldn't be turned off for the sake of satisfying the critics" (Bates, Diamond pg. 86).
In the arguments placed by Fred Wertheimer he argues that television advertising is said to c in the public's mind by one word: Negative. Even though many candidates have some positive things to say, the overall messages are mostly negative attacks ads that set tone and dominate the debate. Most politicians focus most of their time and money on their TV ads with one goal on mind to win the election. If its that's important to win that you have to put down your opponent, undermined your own credibility or damaging your ability to govern. You can also turn away from voting for you. In the book written by Stephen Ansolabehere and Shanto Iyengar called "Going Negative" it said " Negative advertising demoralizes the electorate.eat away at the individual's sense of civic duty.and contributes to the general antipathy toward politicians and parties and the rates of disapproval and distrust of political institutions"(Wertheimer, pg. 88). .
The cost of these campaign ads doesn't come cheap. Candidates spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, sometimes even millions in fees. It's just doesn't make since to spend all that money to conduct a thirty- second ad that just say negative things about their opponent. Now ads weren't always thirty-second spots. In 1970 ads was four minutes and twenty seconds. In 1980s is when the thirty- second ads came in to play. Study has also showed that between 1960- 1988, ads in presidents campaigns were 72% positive and 29% negative. Its wasn't until 1992 when 63% of bill Clinton's ads and 56% of George Bush's ads was negative. This is where the campaign ads took a turn for the negative in the presidential campaign.
