Claims
This political advertisement is composed almost entirely of visual claims. There is no speaking in the ad, only the song “Hair” from the musical of the same name. The song (along with the visuals addressed) is a reference to the criticism John Edwards received for paying $400 for a haircut.
The opening visuals are close up shots of hair, beginning with John Edwards’ hair and followed by shots of other people’s hair. After this, the rest of the shots are of issues of national debate. One of the shots pans out to show Alberto Gonzales testifying, the next shot of hair pans out to show President Busch speaking on a battleship in front of a “Mission Accomplished” banner. The shot then zooms in on the banner. The following shots are of war torn Iraq, the Katrina aftermath, and health care protestors. All of the visuals are issues that Edwards speaks out against regarding the current administration. The ad closes with text asking “What Really Matters?”, followed by “You Choose.” This asks viewers to ask themselves if they care more about John Edwards’ hair or with what he wants to change in our country. The last frame is John Edwards’ campaign website, JohnEdwards.com. This can be seen as a call to learn more about and support John Edwards.
Omissions
The ad does not address the context of the concept. An uninformed viewer would not be able to understand the meaning of the shots of hair and the challenge to viewers about “What Really Matters.” Additionally, the visuals are meant to illustrate the issues that John Edwards would like to change, but the ad does not explicitly state this. However, because the ad presently must be sought out and the original audience was viewers of a televised debate, it can be assumed that the advertisement targeted informed viewers.
When & Where Ad Can Be Seen
The advertisement premiered during the CNN/YouTube debate on July 23, 2007 on the cable network CNN. It can also be found on John Edwards’ campaign website and is on YouTube.com posted by user johnedwards.
Who is Paying?
The advertisement was paid for by John Edwards’ campaign.
Claim Analysis
Edwards is on the record taking issue with all of the claims that are visually addressed in his advertisement. He was the first presidential candidate to call for Alberto Gonzales’s resignation, which he announced in a written statement released in early March 2007. He is also adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq, which the US News and World report called the “centerpiece of his campaign.” Additionally, he wrote a column for The Washington Post admitting it was a mistake to vote for the war in Iraq, while also pointing a finger at Bush and Cheney for being misleading and not accepting responsibility. The Hurricane Katrina aftermath is another issue that he spoke out about before his decision to run for president was solidified. Edwards criticized Bush’s response to Katrina in 2005. The Washington Post reported that, “…former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) asserting that even in its response, the administration backs policies that support the privileged over the working poor.” The use of visuals of victims of Hurricane Katrina addresses Edwards’ larger position against poverty in America. Although there was a brief controversy over Edwards’ investments in companies that were foreclosing on loans taken out by Katrina victims, he immediately withdrew his money from these funds and expressed his commitment to eradicating poverty. In regard to health care, in 2003 Edwards’ received a 100% pro-public health rating from the American Public Health Association. He has openly stated on multiple occasions that he is unhappy with the current health care plans and, according to his campaign website, he has “a bold plan to transform America's health care system and provide universal health care for every man, woman and child in America.” All of the claims made are causes that Edwards strongly supports, and that he feels the current administration has failed in handling. All of the visuals used to back these claims are intended to be striking and elicit a response from viewers. The tactic of posing the issue of a haircut in relation to important political issues is used to make the criticism over Edwards’ haircut seem superficial and inconsequential.
Candidate Response
The candidate was contacted but no response was given.
Ethical Analysis
The Potter box model for ethical analysis can be used to examine the ethical nature of Edwards’ ad. The facts are that John Edwards was criticized for spending $400 on a haircut and in response produced an advertisement with the message that his policy values are more important than the money spent on his hair. From the message of the advertisement and research looking into Edwards’ policies, Edwards values pulling out of Iraq, ending corruption in the administration, eliminating poverty, and reforming health care. It can also be assumed that, because he paid for a $400 hair cut, Edwards values his physical image. It is worth noting that history has shown that physical appearance does matter in candidate judgment. This was first widely illustrated by the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate, where Kennedy outshone Nixon based on his appearance and mannerisms, as taught by a coach. The message that the money spent on a haircut is inconsequential in relation to the larger matters at hand can be analyzed by applying the ethical principle of utility. In accordance with utilitarianism, the ad places an emphasis on the greater good. Instead of concerning themselves with his attendance to his image, Edwards’ is encouraging voters to judge him based on the changes he wants to make for our nation. As a presidential candidate, Edwards has a loyalty to keep the voting public informed. This ad acknowledges the controversy over Edwards’ expensive hair cut, and addresses that controversy by informing voters of the issues that are important in relation to Edwards’ campaign. By acknowledging the criticism and informing the voters of his values, Edwards’ ad shows an openness that makes the advertisement ethical.
Role of Political Advertising in American Public Life
Political advertising is strongly based on image and often lacks the substance that would make citizens informed voters. The money Edwards’ spent on his haircut pales in comparison to the money that all candidates spend to pay for their political appearance. Political advertising, no doubt, impacts the public’s perception of candidates. The ethics that come into question are those of the members of the public who judge candidates based on superficial claims. Political advertising plays a major part in influencing voters and it is the duty of the candidates to come clean about criticism and present their policies in an honest manner.
Conclusion
Although the ethics of Edwards’ haircut were questionable, he took a stance in his ad and made a point that the money he spent to maintain his image is not what matters when it comes to making a decision about him. His basic point was that if one was to fault him, they should fault him on his policies, not on the money he spends to improve his physical appearance. Edwards’ ad displays an openness and honesty that makes it an ethical portrayal of his candidacy for president.
__________________________
