This ad for Representative Ron Paul ran in Iowa before the Ames Straw Poll on August 11, 2007. The ad begins with video of Congressman Paul behind a podium as a song plays with the lyrics “There’s a great man we can count on.” The video then cuts to a crowd of cheering supporters as the voiceover begins. This announcer makes several claims about the candidate: he has never voted to increase taxes, he refused his Congressional pension and he has never voted to increase his Congressional salary. We are told he’s running for President for four reasons. First, he wants to secure our country’s borders. Second, he wants to stop “runaway” spending. Third, he wants to protect our liberties. Finally, he wants to “save our Constitution.”
While these vocal claims are being made several written phrases appear on the screen over the backdrop of more video of his supporters. While watching this ad, we read, “Secure our borders,” “Stop the National I.D. card” and “End unconstitutional spending.” The ad then features Congressman Paul speaking to the crowd, telling them, “You never have to sacrifice one bit of liberty to be secure.” As the crowd cheers, the compassionate-sounding male voiceover returns, using Paul’s campaign slogan, “Hope for America,” and reminding the viewers of the date of the Straw Poll. The ad ends with a still image that includes the candidate’s name, slogan, picture, date of the Straw Poll and the statement “Authorized and paid for by Ron Paul 2008 PCC [Presidential Campaign Committee].” We hear Paul’s voice over this image saying that he approves this ad.
All the factual claims made in this ad are true; he has never voted to increase taxes and has refused his congressional pension, even calling the pension system “immoral.” The issues highlighted in this ad are consistent with Congressman Paul’s platform ; he does not appear to be misrepresenting himself or his stances to pander to this specific audience.
While the ad is truthful, there are still issues of concern. The written phrases that appear in the ad while the voiceover is playing are a bit distracting and confusing mostly because the visual text doesn’t match up with the auditory claims for two out of the three written claims. The viewers see “Secure our borders” while being told that Paul hasn’t ever voted to raise taxes and has refused his Congressional pension. The text that refers to the National I.D. card is never referenced by the announcer or the candidate.
A second issue of concern with this ad is that Congressman Paul never mentions his party affiliation. At the end of the ad when he makes the mandatory statement approving the message he only says he is a “candidate for President.” This may have been because the ad is specifically aimed at the Ames Straw Poll, an event for the Republican Presidential candidates, or because he once ran for President as a Libertarian and many still view him this way. Regardless of the reason, one’s party affiliation seems both an important and odd thing to leave out of a Presidential advertisement.
Finally, the visuals, while seemingly uncomplicated and straightforward, are a bit off. It is hard to tell because the audio of the voiceover does not match up contextually with the visuals, but the video appears to be in slow motion except for the brief five seconds when Congressman Paul is addressing the crowd. The editors clearly had enough footage of adoring crowds to fill 30 seconds, so it’s not clear why they chose to slow things down, although it does appear to match up with the pacing of the music and the announcer’s calm, deliberate delivery.
An email of this analysis was sent to the address provided on the candidate’s website on Wednesday, N
I decided to run this ad through Sissela Bok’s justification model, because I thought this approach is most similar to the way everyday Americans would go about debating the ethics of this ad. In her three-step model first one must appeal to “one’s own conscience .” I thought first about those at whom this ad was targeted. After doing my research into Congressman Paul’s record, this ad appears to be a fair representation of him and his key issues. He didn’t decide to run an ad that focused on farming just because he knew it would play well in Iowa; he stuck to his issues. I also thought about the other candidates. This ad doesn’t mention any other candidate so there isn’t any issue of Congressman Paul misrepresenting them or their stance on any issue. This ad is not an attack ad but an issues ad. That said, more importantly than not directly putting another candidate in a bad or false light, this ad is fair to the other candidates because it is truthful about Ron Paul. No other candidate has to worry about how to correct any untruths or deceptions in the voters’ minds.
This ad also passes Baker and Martinson’s TARES Test of Ethical Advertising. The claims are truthful, as I already covered. It is authentic; there is a sincere need for political advertising and it is done with the right attitude, aiming to honestly inform. We have a great need to know about our political candidates in this nation; without transparency in our electoral process, this is not a true democracy. This ad treats the viewer with respect; he addresses us as concerned and active citizens who want better things for this country. There is equity in this ad; Ron Paul is simply informing us about his views. There is no “inside the Beltway” talk or confusing language. I understood the ad the first time I viewed it.
Finally, this ad is socially responsible. Here we can apply Kant’s Categorical Imperative. If every political candidate ran ads like this one, our society would be in better shape than we are now. We would have honest ads that are about the candidate and the issues, not misleading ads or smear campaigns attacking the other candidates. Bok’s second step is to consult “with chosen peers.”
I spoke with Andrea Maruniak and Kara Krisanic, two Strategic Communication graduate students at the Missouri School of Journalism. I showed them the ad and outlined my thoughts. Both agreed with my belief that this is an ethical advertisement. After I consult my peers, Bok says that “persons of all allegiances must be consulted.” I chose my boyfriend, an English graduate student and strict liberal, and Henry Atkinson, an ardent Republican with whom I work at KBIA. Neither support Paul’s bid for the Presidency, but did not have any problems with the ad. My boyfriend said he liked that Paul stuck to the issues and did not attack any of the other candidates. Neither I nor anyone else I spoke with had ethical concerns with this advertisement.
I ran the ad through a justification model and applied both classical philosophy and recent media ethics theory and can confidently conclude that this advertisement is ethically sound. This ad is a good example of an ethical political advertisement: it honestly informs, provides an opportunity for civil political discourse and gets a non frontrunner’s voice out there to the American public – all important roles of political advertising in our society. While this ad may be ethical, it may not be all that effective; Congressman Ron Paul came in fifth in the Ames Straw Poll.
