CONFESSION

If you have been following this blog for any length of time – and if you have, sincere thanks – you have noticed an increasingly partisan tone lately. You deserve to know why.

When Bob and I started to comment on the political stories we weren’t doing it as Repubs or as Dems. Our expertise is in corporate (Bob prefers to say “organizational”) story telling. Political campaigns are great examples of that sort of state-of-the-art persuasive communications. Our expertise isn’t in what you are trying to sell, but how you are trying to sell it. That’s the point of this blog.

And for many months we hewed to this “neither Dem or Repub” line. Both political parties had candidates who told their stories well, and that is what interests us.

Then the McCain Palin campaign crossed a moral line with a truly scurrilous ad. I’m talking about the Obama “sex ed” ad from a few weeks ago which implies through camera angles and general creepiness that Obama is a pedophile when in fact the bill he was voting for was to help protect young children from sexual predators.

We didn’t comment on it at the time because as we point out in The Elements of Persuasion this sort of negative ad thrives on controversy. Far better to let it die unnoticed. In fact we consider this ad is so immoral that we will not even provide a link to it. We will however provide links that debunk it. Read what the NYT has to say about it here, and see what FactCheck has to say here.

Recently on the “Straight Talk Express” the press started to chant “Bring back Mac, Bring back Mac.” This ad proves it may already be too late. Mac, we considered you an honorable man. You broke our hearts.

Comments

[Cam Beck]

"Recently on the 'Straight Talk Express' the press started to chant 'Bring back Mac, Bring back Mac.'"

If it is as you say, then what a chilling display of personal bias from the mainstream press! Completely destroys their credibility to report on news objectively.

Also, to the sex ed issue (and I'm surprised the McCain camp even brought it up), yes it was supposed to protect youngsters from sexual abuse, but it also provided education -- and therefore moral judgments -- on sexual behaviors (e.g. alternative relationships to traditional marriage) that should be the domain of the parents, not the state.

In other words, the subject is fair game as a matter of record -- as long as you don't assume the same moral probity in teaching one thing as the other.

And even if you do, you cannot deny the opinion of the people themselves in most parts of the country are in sharp disagreement, as evidenced by their voting behavior.

[Todd Albertson]

I enjoyed the content you used to have here and the objective analysis of politics. Then, just like you indicate, you took a partisan LEFT turn.

Just like beauty, objectivity is in the eye of the beholder. From what I can tell, the McCain camp's sex ed ad was true. That is why Obama doesn't like it. Obviously you disagree.

From my perspective, the Obama campaign was the one who started disingenuous ads when they began attacking Palin's family and background. Obviously you disagree.

Therefore I'd suggest you go back to the original focus of this blog (or start another one just focused on why Obama is a god). If I wanted to read Huffington Post-style op eds, I would go there instead of looking here.

I enjoyed reading the the objective analysis that you used to have on the subject of communication, story, and persuasion. And I'd like to see you come back to that...

[Max]

Well, that certainly got a reaction. Thanks to both Cam and Todd for responding.

To Cam - I am not one to often defend the MSM, but in their defense I think the reporters were asking that McCain make himself available for questions. Earlier in the cycle he had been remarkably accessible to reporters, and more recently he has not been.

My objection to the McCain ad on sex education is not a defense of sex ed - it is a reaction to a series really creepy visuals that go with the ad - visuals that to me carried a decidedly leering racial and sexual subtext. I can't make that case more explicitly without getting into details, and as we say in our book one of the problems of negative political ads is that if you deal with them through analysis you in effect end up making them more effective. Because I don't like negative ads, particularly deceptively negative ads, (which this one seems to be according to many fact checkers) I try and avoid the subject. That is one reason I sort of dropped out of commenting on the Obama and Clinton tit-for-tat attacks towards the end of the Dem primary. From a story stand point there was nothing really new there - plenty that was nasty but nothing to learn in terms of storytelling.

To Todd - According to the five-element story model we are in the Antagonist phase of the contest - which is where the most emotion is generated. Though I try to remain objective, I am emotionally caught up on occasion. All I can do when that happens is own up to it and try to get back to a more balanced position. Eventually this campaign will be over and we will all go back to looking at story in broader terms. I look forward to that. In the mean time all I can do is say that if McCain comes out with a storyline which does move the debate forward I will talk about it in a positive way, as I have often talked about his campaign in the past.

[JOANNZamora35]

Various people in the world get the business loans from different banks, just because that is comfortable and fast.

[mortgage loans]

Some specialists state that loans help a lot of people to live the way they want, because they are able to feel free to buy necessary stuff. Moreover, banks give financial loan for young and old people.