 |
| So I have no idea what pictures to use so here's a picture of a pixelated American flag. It's still da best flag of them all. #goosebumps |
I have the political hangover of the century but it hurts so good.
Now that elections are over we can begin to reflect and reminisce on all the good times we've had. OR we can talk about last night's episode of Scandal. I'm literally about to combust. No? Fine.
If you won't allow me to discuss my girl Olivia Pope's love-life, let's start with this election cycle's last-ditch effort at smear-ads. More specifically, the ads exchanged between the candidates for delegate of District 1-B, Jason Buckel and Kevin Kelly.
Kevin Kelly made serious waves at the end of his campaign when he published in the Cumberland Times a police report filed by Buckel's ex-wife from 2003 describing an altercation between herself and Jason Buckel. Buckel's ex-wife quickly redacted her statement the day after she filed it, saying she made the whole thing up.
Side-Note: to avoid further circulating the ad, I am not going to share it here. #Sorrynotsorry.
I can almost hear Kelly now, But he started it! And he would not be entirely wrong.
Buckel definitely wasn't above running a negative campaign. I personally received two or three fliers listing Kelly's failings as Delegate for the past five-terms. Most notably (and hilariously) an ad featuring a close up of a cat alleging that the most impressive thing that Kelly has accomplished in his five-terms is making the state cat of Maryland the Calico.
According to a statement that Buckel made on WCBC the night of the election, Kelly had been threatening to release the document starting when Buckel first announced his intent to run. Buckel prepared himself accordingly. His ex-wife recorded a statement explaining the claims she made were false. The robo-call was delivered to registered republicans within Buckel and Kelly's district.
So what's the difference between the two ads? Any at all? According to Commissioner Jake Shade's campaign manager Erin Giles, the difference is within validity and relevance: "Buckel focused his ads on Kelly's voting record and accomplishments (or lack thereof). Kelly chose to attack Buckel's personal life."
April Baer, a Certified Victim Advocate through the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault (MCASA) and Frostburg State University's Director of Student Wellness, was less concerned with the political move and more concerned with the broader message conveyed. Baer said:
"The tone concerned me for the implications that it had toward victims of sexual violence and their personal security. When I read it, I was horrified. There was no context to the police report and my mind immediately went to the safety of the family. I thought 'If this is really happening, now what is gonna happen to the wife?' As an advocate for victims of sexual assault and violence, I'm afraid what this says to other victims about the security of their reports. I feel as though there was a way for Kelly to make this a conversation about domestic violence. He could have turned this into a platform and shared it as a genuine concern. Instead, he put it in the paper with no context and it was extremely alarming."
Very Olivia Pope of you, Mrs. Baer. One for you, April.
Giles, a senior Communications major at McDaniel College, noted the impact Kelly's choice had on the outcome of the race.
"According to early voting totals, Buckel was winning even before Kelly's huge smear ad, but Buckel crushed Kelly on Election Day," she said.
Seeing as Buckel won the election 60-40, is this tactic really an effective tool in the current political field? Evidently not this time, but the practice is definitely not dead.
So, what do you think? Was Kelly's ad too far or just poorly executed? Comment below! :)
No comments:
Post a Comment