Op Ad: Obama More Negative Than McCain?

Chris Matthews's "Big Number" on Hardball last night was 77. That's the percentage of Obama's ads running the week after the conventions that the nonpartisan Wisconsin Advertising Project deemed "negative;" by comparison, only a mild-sounding 56 percent of McCain's ads received the neg tag. "Surprising," Matthews said, as media all over conveyed the stats with an explanation point but nary a "Huh?"

The problem is that, at first glance, the numbers could leave the impression that maybe, just maybe McCain is getting a bad rap, that he's being unfairly characterized as a lying McNasty, while Obama is actually the rabid attack dog. Such an image switcharoo snaps right into the template that Fox and friends promote: Obama's not who you think he is.

As it turns out, however, 77/56 means no such thing. The WAP study deemed an ad "negative" for simply "mentioning the other candidate," says Sarah Niebler, deputy director of the WAP, run by the University of Wisconsin poli-sci department. "We're not evaluating the veracity of the campaigns. If I'm McCain, for instance, it doesn't matter if I'm comparing economic policies or saying Obama's a liar--as long as I mention his name, it counts as negative." There was no practical way, she adds, to objectively measure "the severity of the claims."

In other words, the McCain ads aren't penalized for portraying Obama as a perv who wants kindergartners to learn about sex before they learn to read (a ridiculous spin on an Illinois bill, which didn't pass, intended to protect children from predators), or docked for making utterly false charges, like the canard that Obama sent out a wolf pack of DNC lawyers to "dig dirt" on Sarah Palin. Obama's negative ads--portraying McCain as too out-of-touch to use email or as surrounded by lobbyists--don't swing so low. Besides, they're accurate.

And while the study counts the number of times paid commercials air, it doesn't count the same ads when they run for free, as fodder for cable shouting matches. Nor do the numbers reflect the Web ads, negative or positive, that the campaigns crank out. So, for instance, the chuckling McCain spot portraying Obama as the anti-Christ, seen hundreds of thousands of times, doesn't factor in.

Just wanted to put these numbers in context before the McCain campaign uses that big number 77 to make us think his opponent is 666.

UPDATE: It's not just Chris. Most of the press that's mentioned the study has repeated the Obama-more-negative-than-McCain stats without looking into what they mean, like this from WaPo's Howard Kurtz. And Media Matters catches the New York Post completely misconstruing them.

Comments (17)

1. "Just wanted to put these numbers in context before the McCain campaign uses that big number 77 to make us think his opponent is 666."

   MOOHAHA!!!!

   Posted by dexter666 at 09/18/2008 @ 6:22pm

2. "those who need to get their butts kicked will feel it in the butt"

   michael chertoff, homeland fema guy...

   well i'm certainly glad those who need it will feel it in the butt...

   Posted by dexter666 at 09/18/2008 @ 6:43pm

3. Highlighting McCain's own lies and stupidities is not what I think of as negative either, that would be attacking something falsely or not germane to the issues (like the Repubs do, oh belipsticked swine).

   Posted by MajMike at 09/18/2008 @ 7:07pm

4. Typical bunch of crap. I've been saying all along that Obama is not running against McCain. He is running against the Fawning Corporate Media.

   All the concern trolls in the FCM cry about how come Obama isn't 20 points ahead in the polls. This story is just one of a thousand reasons. I just watched a piece on MSNBC where the reporter did a decent job debunking the latest lies put out by the Palin half of the team - but right at the end she said to close the piece "but the Obama ads are just as bad" and then it ended.

   As the article above says - "negative" means you mention the other guy. What a crock!

   SO Obama's ads - which mostly tell the truth when they 'mention the other guy' are 'just as bad' as all the lies and distortions of the McSlime campaign.

   The wonder of it all is just the opposite of the concern trolls meme:

   Given the FCM is in McSlime's pocket - why isn't HE up 20 points over Obama???

   Posted by lokywoky at 09/18/2008 @ 7:08pm

5. "...in the butt."

   michael chertoff, homeland fema guy...

   Posted by dexter666 at 09/18/2008 @ 7:14pm

6. "...feel it in the butt."

   michael chertoff, homeland fema guy...

   these neocon appointees are certainly some clever orators in the classic style...

   Posted by dexter666 at 09/18/2008 @ 7:17pm

7. Repubs love the game, from elementary school, where the first kid hits the other kid...then the second kids hits back, just as the teacher looks, and the first kid goes "Miss Johnson, Bobby's hitting people!"

   Be nice and they'll steamroll you....fight back and they scream "He's not being nice! He promised he'd be nice!"

   Plus 90% of any bad ad against McCain?....is using McCain's own words against him...the words of Douglas Holtz-Eakins...or Carly Fiorina....or Saint Sarah.

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/18/2008 @ 8:05pm

8. What if it is an Obama ad that just says McCain is a nice guy? Does that count as negative?

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/18/2008 @ 8:05pm

9. obama's fighting...and winning!!!!

   Posted by dexter666 at 09/18/2008 @ 8:08pm

10. where are the trolls? bring...out...the trolls...

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/18/2008 @ 8:13pm

11. *What if it is an Obama ad that just says McCain is a nice guy? Does that count as negative?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/18/2008 @ 8:05pm*

    If I'm reading the rules right CCC, yup. That's the drawback of flawed methodology.

    Posted by yutsano at 09/18/2008 @ 10:16pm

12. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/18/2008 @ 8:05pm

    Republicans remain the biggest whiners in America. They whine about taxes, when they'd rather have their kids, grandkids, etc. pay their freight. They whine that they get called out, when they use stereotyping pejoratives, that we're trying to enforce political correctness. They whine that we don't worship and obey them, in the guise of worshipping and obeying their image of God. McCain whines that Obama won't kiss his ass and do the town-hall-meeting-in-front-of-McCain-audiences bullshit. This bunch of rabid Clinton-haters whines that we don't love their Dear Leader. Gramm was largely wrong, but partly right - it's not all Americans, but it is Republicans who are an inveterate, and invertebrate bunch of whiners.

    Posted by jmusolino at 09/18/2008 @ 11:21pm

13. Posted by lokywoky at 09/18/2008 @ 7:08pm

    Exactly- just cause Chris Matthews is a little less fascist than Cheney, he gets passed off as balanced. This is a lie a 5th grader could see through. Same as it ever was on the F C M.

    Here's some more Matthews:

    Mission Accomplished: A look back at the media's fawning coverage of Bush's premature declaration of victory in Iraq

    MATTHEWS: What's the importance of the president's amazing display of leadership tonight?

    [...]

    MATTHEWS: What do you make of the actual visual that people will see on TV and probably, as you know, as well as I, will remember a lot longer than words spoken tonight? And that's the president looking very much like a jet, you know, a high-flying jet star. A guy who is a jet pilot. Has been in the past when he was younger, obviously. What does that image mean to the American people, a guy who can actually get into a supersonic plane and actually fly in an unpressurized cabin like an actual jet pilot?

    [...]

    MATTHEWS: Do you think this role, and I want to talk politically [...], the president deserves everything he's doing tonight in terms of his leadership. He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics. Do you think he is defining the office of the presidency, at least for this time, as basically that of commander in chief? That [...] if you're going to run against him, you'd better be ready to take [that] away from him.

    [...]

    MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Bob Dornan, you were a congressman all those years. Here's a president who's really nonverbal. He's like Eisenhower. He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes West. I remember him standing at that fence with Colin Powell. Was [that] the

    Posted by winyahn at 09/18/2008 @ 11:59pm

14. ...Was [that] the best picture in the 2000 campaign?

    [...]

    MATTHEWS: Ann Coulter, you're the first to speak tonight on the buzz. The president's performance tonight, redolent of the best of Reagan -- what do you think?

    Posted by winyahn at 09/19/2008 @ 12:03am

15. I thought the title of this article was a joke -- and it is. But the comment by winyahn is "great stuff" as tweetie would say. His recent rehabilitation is a positive move in the other direction, but I remember feeling complete outrage during his fawning man-crush on Bush, and Tom Delay. Gross. I was just as repulsed by his toe sucking slobberfest on Jay Leno over Obama. Let's face it, Chris loves the dudes.

    Obama/Biden 08

    Posted by AngryLefty at 09/19/2008 @ 12:39am

16. Obama is on the attack ... but howzabout the "truthiness". Look at the attack profiles at politifact.com and note how many "lies" and "pan on fire" rating McSame has vs Obama. Attacks are fine if they're rooted in fact.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/19/2008 @ 07:57am

17. ooops .. "pants on fire" (not "pan...")

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/19/2008 @ 09:07am