during every election since i've become politically aware, there has been someone bemoaning* the prevalence of negative campaign ads.
i actually like negative advertising. that doesn't mean i like factually incorrect ads--and unfortunately many negative ads are misleading by design--but a negative ad is just an advertisement that includes a criticism of an opponent. candidates exchanging criticism what a public debate is all about.
i realize advertisement which concentrated on the positives of the candidate it supports would make campaigns feel a lot less nasty. but if each candidate only talked about how great he/she is, the campaigns wouldn't be about the issues that divide the candidates and that would make campaigns a lot less substantive. if you say it's wrong to say congressman X is wrong to support policy Y, then you're essentially saying that it's wrong to hold our leaders into account.
-------
* yeah, i know late in the horrigan article, she includes a single paragraph that describes the value of attack ads. horrigan notes that attack ads are "are not without their purpose" and quotes someone who makes the same point as i do that negativity is part of accountability. but by the next paragraph horrigan slips right back to the "negative ads suck" line of reasoning. the "accountability" point is never mentioned again.
