Television Campaign Advertising

Television campaign advertising is the most visible signpost that most people have to guide them through an election year. We are bombarded with short ads that extol the virtues, or drawbacks, of each candidate; but what are they really saying? What are they designed to say? Drawing upon visual rhetoric techniques pioneered by Roland Barthes and furthered by Ann Tyler, we’re going to find out that these ads rarely give us the truth about candidates. Specifically, a recent ad by the Scott Brown campaign showing us how special his pickup truck is; and an opposing ad from Martha Coakley that makes Brown out to be a rape-loving fascist.

Truth, however, is a dangerous word and a relative concept, especially in politics. Burroughs said that “Nothing is true”, and I’m inclined to agree. We could peel back the layers of truth like an onion for 1000 pages, but let’s not try to deconstruct the universe here. In this essay, “truth” will refer to the actions of the candidates versus what these ads are trying to make us believe about them. Does the “truth” of how they conduct their business as politicians match up with the “truth” of the advertising narrative? In fact, I will argue that these two ideas are so far apart that they render the ads irrelevant to what we assume their purpose is; informing us of our best choice based upon a candidate’s morals and by extension their platform. This is, in fact, not the purpose of these ads at all. Their purpose is to swindle you and manipulate your emotions. To create their own truth which will hopefully spread like wildfire and become the majority Truth .

In his groundbreaking (and tongue twisting) “Rhetoric of the Image” Roland Barthes introduces two powerful ideas while examining...

... middle of paper ...

...ed with connoted imagery that it has taken me six pages to examine one combined minute of footage. To ascertain any amount of truth from these ads, we need examine them claim by claim against what we know of the candidate’s personal and professional lives, thereby rendering the ads useless in the first place. In the end, all we’re doing is trying to parse out the false narrative of a secondary source instead of going directly to the primary sources themselves. Is this how you want to go about the business of choosing who will make important decisions about your life and the state of your country? Next time the candidate that you voted for does something that goes against their advertised principals, don’t be mad at them; be mad at yourself if you voted based on a commercial. After all, truth in advertising law only applies to the goods you buy, not the people.