OPINION
Last Kid Standing
(Cartoon by Elizabeth Arroyo)
Senior Ellie Stingley adapts to life as the only child at home after her sister leaves for college.
The Naked Truth Political ads use scandals and fears to divert voters’ attention from important issues. BY ELLIE SCHWARTZ NEWS EDITOR Approaching the Nov. 4 election, a political ad plastered who appeared to be Kansas State Representative Kevin Yoder cannonballing nearly naked across voters’ televisions. The staged footage, imitating his nude swim in the Sea of Galilee, played before dissatisfied Kansans, deplored Yoder’s lack of clothing and paralleled it to his “stingy” funding. Crude suggestions have become fair game in catching voters’ attention. With dramatized voices and vocabulary, the ad resembled the “Two Minutes Hate” from George Orwell’s “1989” more closely than a substantial criticism. Ads from both parties manipulate information, using sensational scandals instead of addressing the issues. And their questionable sources of funding also detract from their credibility. The sources of funding for political ads don’t have voters’ best interests in mind yet heavily influence elections. Thirty to 50 percent of all money raised is used on negative campaign ads, according to a research compilation from the Journal of Advertising. Since most donors expect favors in return for donations upon their candidate’s election, their primary goal is to sway voters. The amount of negative political ads used in the 2012 presidential election increased more than 30 percent since the 2000 election, according to a research paper published by Erika Fowler. This influx of ads comes from the selfish motivations of donors. As a result, money influences elections that should be based on ideology. Political ads often avoid the issues voters should focus on. In the primary United States Senate race, candidate Dr. Milton Wolf ’s ad showed him as a radiologist in scrubs, walking the hospital halls as pleasant music played. In reality, Wolf ’s experience as a doctor didn’t increase his potential
as a senator. The ad avoided concrete stances and beliefs just as the ad criticizing Yoder exacerbated a scandal that had no real effect on Kansas. In a time of such unprecedented partisanship regarding issues such as gun control and gay marriage, voters need accurate information regarding policy, not skinny-dipping or a candidate’s irrelevant day job, to make informed decisions. Ads are meant to scare voters, to produce a hateful reaction toward the candidate portrayed, according to David Jaffe, Dean of Lynn University’s College of International Communication. Therefore, ads deliberately avoid the important issues and build fear in the political system, which causes voters to make uninformed decisions. The extent that voters and, as a result, elections are manipulated by these ads is staggering. In a study done by the University of Texas and University of Notre Dame, participants were shown one negative and one positive campaign ad against both candidates before recording their updated preference. Fourteen percent of voters rejected their originally preferred candidate after watching the negative ad. There was minimal movement when shown the positive ad. Fourteen percent of voters, enough to decisively sway elections, are regularly swayed by scandals designed to scare them every time a negative ad is released. While it’s nearly impossible to avoid political ads, voters can control what information they use to make decisions. Examining voting records, ideological standings and debates is the only way to make informed decisions when voting. Since campaigns and donors avoid real issues, voters must address them on their own. Reliable information does exist but not on the television approaching election day. While the sources and messages of political ads are nearly as frightening as the ads themselves, voters can and should actively inform themselves through other means. The next time a politician appears naked on a TV screen, voters must take control and ask themselves, ‘Why should this influence my decision?’
BY ELLIE STINGLEY CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF After trying on countless outfits without satisfaction, I walked down the hall and knocked on my sister Sarah’s door for help. She was always my hero in such situations. “You know, I won’t be able to help you with this every weekend once I’m at college,” Sarah said. I suddenly realized how different everyday life would be without her. Sarah and I are four years apart, which means she left for college as soon as I entered high school. During the months leading up to that first day without her, I assumed the only things that would change were not being able to ask for her fashion advice and not having someone with whom I could laugh at our quirky parents. Boy, was I wrong. Since Sarah and I are the only kids in the family, her departure for college left me as the only child at home. In other words, I am the only child over which my parents have complete authority. The spotlight is on me. Yay. I’m not saying my parents don’t have lives or other things to do, but when they suddenly went from two kids to one, all of the attention shifted toward yours truly. This may sound like a good thing, which is sometimes the case. However, as a teenager looking for more freedom in high school, the new abundance of attention isn’t always welcomed. When I come home from school, I am greeted by millions of questions about every detail of my day. And every time I decide to hang out with friends, another million questions follow the request for permission to go to a friend’s house. I’m not saying I don’t appreciate that my parents care enough about me to ask all these questions. But a little breathing room is sometimes necessary to avoid suffocation. Another aspect of being the only child at home involves one thing we all hate: chores. Without a partner with whom I can divide the chores, the list of assignments including laundry, dishes and vacuuming is conveniently given to me. I can no longer only empty the bottom rack of the dishwasher or alternate weeks to vacuum. Sarah’s leaving for college has meant more than a spare bedroom and wardrobe struggles. I’ve realized that having someone to fight with, something I always disliked, also means having someone to experience things with. And sometimes that just means being able to divide chores or endure the somewhat suffocating parental attention. Through the past three years of being the only child at home, however, I have come to know my parents in more ways than I thought possible, which is something I’m grateful for. Yes, the unlimited attention can be overwhelming, but I know it is because they care. And when Sarah comes home to visit, it gives me more laughable stories to tell her about our sometimes crazy parents. LE JOURNAL ISSUE 3
9
