The essence of an attack ad is the linking of emotive content with factual arguments. Moveon.org’s recent ad in the NYTimes was a good example of this technique, that for too long has been the exclusive territory of Republicans.
However, MoveOn's ad had some weaknesses (which I'll discuss below). I know of few good examples of what makes a good Democratic attack ad, so I created one. Please cite me if you are going to produce it. I’ve worked as a film and drama critic, worked in advertising, made a documentary, and have degrees in this line of work--so, this is my area of expertise.
Example Ad: Rudy Cross-Dressing His Record
Ad Thesis
(1) Factual Aspect: Rudy is dressing up his record; and is a master of distortion;
(2) Emotive Aspect: Rudy is a frequent cross dresser, and an ugly one at that.
Actual Ad:
MAN ON STREET: There’s nothing wrong with cross-dressing, I mean if that’s what you like to do.
INTERCUT WITH
Rudy on stage with other cross-dresser.
Citation.
CROSS-DRESSER 1: Can you really play a woman playing a man playing a woman?
RUDY IN DRAG: I already play a Republican, playing a Democrat, playing a Republican. (Audience laughs.)
MAN ON STREET: But Cross-dressing your record when running for President, that’s just not right.
RUDY PRESS CONFERENCE [citation]:
I was at ground zero often, if not more than most of the workers. . . I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to.
INTERCUT WITH, Shots of Rudy at Yankee game, Shots of Ground Zero Workers on Piles, Shots of Rudy doing a photo-op tour.
MAN ON STREET (V.O.): From 9/17/2001 to 12/17/2001, Rudy spent an estimated 58 hours at Yankee games, and only 29 hours at Ground Zero. And most of the time, he was showboating.
RUDY [Hanity Interview, ~4:37]
RUDY: My record is filled with a lot of achievement, and a lot of mistakes . . go look at all those things.
Cross-Dressing Rudy putting perfume on his chest. The Donald [Donald Trump] leans forward.
CHRIS WALLACE INTERVIEW, ~3:36-3:56
CHRIS WALLACE: You put the emergency response command center in the World Trade Center in 1997, even though your director of emergency management suggested,
Begin on Chris Wallace asking question, go to graphic of location of Emergency Response Center, and BACK to Interview on shot Rudy laughing at the question.
AUDIO: WALLACE, (CONT’D): recommended that it not be put there since it was a target in 1993. Why’d you do that?
RUDY: My director recommended 7 World Trade Center.
WALLACE: I have a copy of Jerry Hauser’s directive to you, and there were meetings . . .
Close in on Rudy in interview smiling nervously, and crossing his legs. Intercut with Rudy in drag strutting towards the camera in outfit.
Back to Man on Street. Intercut with Rudy in Cross-Dressing outfit walking to the camera.
MAN ON STREET: A man is free to be a cross-dresser, but the problem with Rudy is he likes to play dress up with the facts, and that can be really dangerous with a President.
Ad Analysis
This is badly formatted because it should be two columns (column 1: audio; column 2: visual), but you get the idea. Basically, there needs to be a synthesis of the emotive theme: “Rudy is an ugly cross-dresser” with the factual theme “Rudy is dressing up his ugly record.” There visual images must be negative (Rudy laughing in response to a serious question; Rudy cheering at Yankee games while men work on the Ground Zero piles) and each frame the image must tell the story. There must be no visual imagery that shows the opponent in a positive light.
The structure of this ad is very simple. The structure can also lend itself to a series of ads [(1) Cross-Dresser, Tough on Terrorism; (2) Cross-Dresser, Economic Miracle-Worker; (3) Cross-Dresser, Family Values Man; etc.] all focusing upon Rudy dressing up his record.
Such an ad campaign would be very strong because it is factual and the cross-dressing metaphor works throughout to create a unified message.
State of Democratic Attack Ads
Recent Democratic attack ads have been good, but they could be better. Here are two critiques:
Greenwald: The Real Rudy
Greenwald recent effort The Real Rudy,
is a great factual ad, but the emotive part, in visual terms, favors Rudy. Rudy is shown walking the streets on the day of 9/11, a visually tragic and inherently sympathetic position. Although the verbal testimony of the witnesses refutes this iconic imagery, the witness testimony shouldn’t be in a position of battling with more powerful and sympathetic visual images of Rudy. The rule of advertising is the visual trumps the verbal.
Moveon.org: General Betrayus
MoveOn.org’s recent ad was ok https://pol.moveon.org/... But again, there is a great problem with the visual. We look up to General Petraeus, as a child does to a parent or as a subordinate does to a person in greater authority. The visual is saying, “here is someone in authority whom we are looking up to”——the direct opposite of what the ad is trying to say. Maybe moveon.org thinks it is a great idea to have a visual image that contradicts the text—it’s “irony” or something. However, this is simply wrong-headed. Everything must convey the message. And again, the visual trumps the verbal.
Moving Towards Better Attack Ads
I hope in future ads, I hope that the Democrats can get it right. Call the opponent what they are and make sure everything conveys your message.
Some more suggestions. In future text based ads, or web based ads, think of structuring them as slide-shows. Each point that Moveon.org has to portray has both a visual image and text.
Build on General Betrayus theme. It seems that Moveon.org has created a memorable ad, that it can use again in the future.
Rational Behind A Series of Attack Ads Such As “Cross-Dressing Rudy”
A few weeks ago, David Brooks trashed Drew Westen’s, “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of a Nation” in the NYTimes.
In his book review, Brooks cites one of Westen’s arguments:
At another point, he imagines Gore exploding: “Why don’t you tell us how many times you got behind the wheel of a car with a few drinks under your belt, endangering your neighbors’ kids? Where I come from, we call that a drunk.”
Brooks objects to this argument: “what does he [Westen] do to those who disagree with him at Emory faculty meetings, especially recovering alcoholics?”
However, if Gore had attacked Bush for his DUI conviction and Cheney’s two DUI convictions, he wouldn’t have been accusing Bush of merely being an alcoholic; rather he would have been accusing Bush of recklessly breaking the law and endangering others. This would have pointed to some truths that have been bourne out: Cheney and Bush, once in office, have acted like the law does not apply to them. Cheney and Bush, have little consideration for the opinion of others or the well-being of others. Cheney and Bush have acted as if they were above the law.
If these simple facts were pointed out in the Gore campaign, perhaps more Democrats would have stood up to Bush and Cheney during these dark years of his reign.
If the Democrats do not continue to “call a spade a spade,” as Moveon’sEli Pairser characterized the General Betrayus ad, the dressing up of the truth will continue. The old saying is that truth is the first casualty in war; but it doesn't die, you just need to revive it.