Sunday Times 2
Deconstructing the ad wars of 2019 presidential candidates
“Politics will eventually be replaced by imagery. The politician will be only too happy to abdicate in favour of his image because the image will be much more powerful than he could ever be.” -Marshall McLuhan
With the advent of modern technologies and the rise of visual culture, today, more than any other point in history, image matters.
Despite media evolution, and ubiquity of social media, it is believed that television advertising is the primary means by which candidates and parties, directly reach voters (Brader, 2006). (Bennett and Entman 2001), too attested that one of the main channels of communication between the political system and citizens is television. However, all of us are aware to a greater extent most of these ads are not just showing up on people’s television screens but are abundantly available on YouTube, Twitter and other online media platforms as well.
Historically, the most notable political advertisement in memory is titled Daisy Girl. It is said that Lyndon Johnson sponsored the ad against Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election in the U.S.A. (Schwartz, 1964). The ad opens with a young girl picking petals from a daisy, while a man’s voice counts down to zero. The frame zooms into the young girl’s fearful eyes and cuts to an image of a nuclear explosion. By scaring voters, the ad urges them to participate in the political process
This study approaches the analysis of present political advertisements from a Medium theory perspective. The medium theory is associated with Marshall McLuhan (1964) and Harold Innis (1964). It says that “The medium is the message.” McLuhan expands his theory by arguing that throughout human history, social changes have followed technological advancements in media. For example, the invention of the printing press brought about certain social changes that evolved around the affordances of faster, standardised, and more accessible information in the form of printed documents. Innis (1964), on the other hand, points out through his research that there is an inherent bias of communication that ultimately centralises power in the hands of technological elites.
We can classify 2019 presidential election advertisements according to the following norms suggested by Joelle Halle (2017). In this study, the first layer of analysis involves the tone of the advertisements, which is usually positive or negative. Political campaigns most often use attack advertisements, which criticise an opponents’ political platform, usually by pointing out their faults and major drawbacks.
Another norm is Advocacy advertisements.Although not memorable in this day and age of politics, they are equally important. Advocacy ads state why a specific candidate is worthy of a vote (Geer, 2006). These ads usually utilise empowering statements, make various promises to the potential voters, and it has an overall uplifting message. Some of the most successful political advertisements find a balance between attack and advocacy and take the form of contrast advertisements. For example, an ad will begin with a criticism of an opponent’s plans of promises and end with evidence as to why their own candidate’s leading is better. There are some advertisements that both attack and advocate successfully, thus creating a tone of contrast. In addition to the tone, research on political advertising often requires a third layer of analysis, namely, topics of the advertisement.
Usually, advocacy ads that feature past achievements discuss qualifications, implying why the candidate is worthy of votes. Attack ads featuring the topic of recent accomplishments are less common. Still, candidates bring up the past achievements of their opponents and frame them as failures to make themselves appear more credible than their opponents.
Another norm is Advertisement Content. The content area of interest for each ad is usually analysed separately from ad tone and topic to provide greater context. For example, according to Ridout et al. (2014), hot and current issues became a popular choice for ad content, while outdated topics appear less frequently. Overall, analysing the content of campaign ads allows scholars to gain insight into the usefulness of political advertising and trace changes in the political landscape.
For this analysis, I selected political advertisements of the two leading candidates — Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Sajith Premadasa. They appeared from September 19 the nomination day to October 31st on Hiru, Derana, TNL, Swarnavahini, Rupaviahini and ITN television channels. I carefully observed the political advertisements that were aired during and before and after the evening news, starting with the ITN newscast at 6.30 P.M.
The following three questions were selected for analysis of their advertisements:
1. What is the overall tone of each advertisement? Is it an attack, advocacy, or contrast?
2. Is the topic of each advertisement portraying a personal character, future policy or past achievement?
3. What type of content is addressed in the advertisement?
I content-analysed and coded sponsored advertisements for the following categories: tone (i.e. attack, advocacy or contrast). First, I watched each ad once through in its entirety and made the corresponding notes on the code sheet. I poured over the same ads several times to ensure quality control throughout the coding process. In addition to watching television, I also looked at their Facebook accounts, Twitter accounts and web pages.
Advertisement tone
To answer the first question, namely tone of advertisements, the two candidates’ sponsored advertisements were scrutinised. The results revealed that the attack tone was dominant in the sponsored adverts of Gotabaya Rajapakse. “Hondata thibunu Ratak – Apa vatichicha thanak” which can be translated “A country which was good, and look at that country now?” These attacks made use issues such as unemployment, security lapse, the April 21 tragedy, unfulfilled Volkswagen car factory promise, rising taxes, not completing the Central Expressway and storing of paddy in the newly built Mattala airport. Gotabaya also had few advocacy advertisements. His advocacy advertisements mainly talked about improving road networks, beautifying the city and creating recreational space.
On the other hand, only a few attacks advertisements were used by the Sajith’s side during the period under review. Most of his advertisements were advocacy and contrast ads. His plans for the bright future for the youth, the security of the country, higher salaries for government servants, asking people to distinguish between truth and false promises, new charter for women, moves to foster unity in the whole country were included in his advocacy ads. One of the main attack ads spoke of how when there are no power, people act and how they act when they have power. Sajith’s advertisements also made use of his invitation to Gotabaya for a debate on key issues.
The second research question: What is the topic of each of these advertisements? Do they portray a personal character, future policy, or past achievement?
Most of Gotabaya’s advertisements portrayed his personal character. He was portrayed and presented as a man who did some work, and who can work or man who can get work done. Wada karana minisa was the main theme in most of his ads. A tested vision (sarthaka dakmak) and a working country were the favourite theme.
On the other hand, Sajith’s advertising campaign revolved around “Let us move forward unitedly. It can be translated as “ekva idiriyata…” Gotabaya’s advertisements often had coded symbols in his “this is our country and the country first” themes.
The final question was what main themes were included in the advertisement of two main candidates? It is correct to say that in the advertisements of both the candidates, the following themes were visible: Their personal character, future policy or past achievements. Security, unemployment, and national unity were included in the adverts of both candidates.
Based on the results of this content analysis, Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s advertising strategy favoured a more attack approach. On the other hand, Sajith Premadasa’s advertisement featured an advocacy tone (Table 1). The most popular topic was national security due to the April terror attacks; the most shared content categories addressed were, strong leadership, and foreign policy. Overall, Gotabaya’s advertisement often advocated his past achievements as defence secretary.
As we approach the election day, the results will tell us which advertisements has worked well and which approach has not worked. We need to remember that all these attractive advertisements, unlike commercial advertisers, do not adhere to any codes or procedures intended to protect the public from inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims. Kishali Pinto Jayawardena has warned us in her timely last “Sunday’s column, aptly titled “This land of glorious promise and perpetual failures” we need to remember what Sri Lanka’s inimitable singer’s warning. “All of us are at the threshold of a dangerous presidential election. We are forced to vote this time, not out of an abundance of cheery optimism but out of an acute apprehension that some of us would be murdered in our beds if we chose wrongly believing only in glamorous advertising.” Wolves are dressed in sheep clothing while sheep also appear in wolves clothing making it difficult to distinguish both.
(The writer is a professor of Media Studies at the Open University of Sri Lanka)