Campaign TV ads has become a big part of presidential, and congress elections. Campaign TV ads has made it easier to communicate with vote, it went from a few people hearing and seeing candidates at rally's to millions sitting in their living watching ad after ad of campaign ads. That's why politicians devote so much time and money to producing TV ads. Now the reason for these ads now and days are that candidates in thirty-seconds or shorter bash their opponents or attempt to communicate key words message to the sometimes uninformed, unsuspecting, and undecided voters. The problem of all this is that study has shown that most of the ads threw out the year has been "negative ads". These negatives ads present a negatives view of specific candidates for office, but also damage the political system too. At the same time political ads actually are highly beneficial.
In the article called "Campaigns and Media" its argues two points of view that why Campaigns Ads are good and bad. The author that supports why campaign ads are bad is Fred Wertheimer. Fred Wertheimer is President of Democracy 21, and served as President of Common Cause from 1981 to 1995. He argues negatives ads is a distrust of the political process. Wertheimer said "the damage done by negative ads makes it very difficult to govern in a world increasingly beset with public cynicism and distrust, that cynicism being fed by negative campaigning" (Wertheimer, pg.86). The authors that support why ads are good are Stephen Bates and Edwin Diamond. Stephen Bates is a Senior Fellow with Annenberg Washington Program in Communication Policy Studies. Edwin Diamond is professor of journalism at New York University and a media columnist for the "New Yorker" magazine. Bates and diamond realize that campaign ads has there negative aspects, but there not as bad as the critics say they are. There are some ads that leave voters better informed than they were before.