---------- Text of forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:08:47 CDT From: "Kenneth L. Hacker, Ph.D., Communication" <[log in to unmask]> To: Multiple recipients of list ACTIV-L <[log in to unmask]> Subject: BUSH'S BOGUS TIME MAGAZINE TV SPOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE, October 15, 1992 ETHICAL ISSUES REGARDING THE BUSH "TIME" TV SPOT by Kenneth L. Hacker, Ph.D. and Walter R. Zakahi, Ph.D. Department of Communication Studies New Mexico State University The Bush campaign is currently airing a TV spot attacking Bill Clinton which we have determined to be unethical by standards established by advertisers, political communication scholars, and the United States government. This ad exemplies efforts to mislead the American voters in this election. The ad we are referring to is the "Time" ad which looks exactly like a spot for Time magazine. The ad uses the negative image actually used by Time magazine to highlight doubts that some voters have about Bill Clinton's honesty. The ad never reveals its production or funding source. What makes this ad unethical is that it is deceptive and designed to mislead viewers. It also violates Federal Communications Commission regulations regarding identification of sponsorship of political TV spots. CNN (October 14, 1992) reports that the Bush campaign has refused to pull the spot and is willing to air it despite protests by Time magazine. Time magazine is ready to sue the Bush campaign, but the actual court case will not likely occur until after the damage to Clinton is done and the election is over. As scholars of communication, we believe that the Bush campaign is violating norms of ethical media practice and is attempting to deceive the American electorate. This must be responded to by anyone concerned about fair campaigning in our society. Advertising, whether commercial or political, is a form of persuasion. It stimulates impressions and has effects on its audience. This is why the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission attempt to stop advertising which is fraudulent or misleading. Political advertising is more protected by the First Amendment than is commercial advertising. This follows the tradition of protecting free political speech as much as possible. However, there are codes of ethics and federal regulations which make the Bush campaign ad an object of media abuse which must be exposed and analyzed. The American Association of Advertising Agencies lists as one of its code of ethics statements, the following (Christians, Rotzoll, and Fackler, 1987): "The agency should not indulge in any practices which might be deceptive or misleading in word, photograph, film or sound." The Bush campaign ad misleads it viewers with the Time logo, Time magazine cover, and the absence of true production/funding source. There are two important possible consequences for not dealing with this unethical TV spot. First, political campaigning will continue to move away from issues and toward character assassination through images. Second, future ads may use other fraudulent associations such as phony newscasts to contain their messages about candidates. FCC regulations make it clear that political campaigns are required to identify their sponsorship of political TV spots. Political advertising researcher, Lynda Kaid (1991) argues that simple truth/untruth standards are not useful for judging an ad which fails to disclose information, that it is better to ask if the missing information is necessary for viewers t make rational decisions. We believe that the Bush spot encourages irrational decisions by voters and also is fully intentional in its attempt to deceive the public into believing that the attacks made on Clinton are being made, not by Bush, but the popular and credible news source, Time magazine. Kaid says that the ability to identify the source of an ad is important to evaluating its worth. This is why the FCC mandates disclosure of sources for political advertising in broadcasting. We encourge voters, journalists, scholars, candidates, and campaign professionals to join us in exposing this unethical method of reaching voters. It is manipulative and deceptive. As in all campaigns, we need more focus on policies and less craftiness with techniques of deception. REFERENCES Christians, C., Rotzoll, K., and Fackler, M. (1987). Media Ethics. New York: Longman. Kaid, L. (1991). Ethical dimensions of political advertising. In R. Denton (Ed.), Ethical Dimensions of Political Communication. New York: Praeger. pp. 145-169. CONTACT: Dr. K. Hacker, (505) 646-2801, 646-4839.