ABSTRACT. Political campaign advertising continues
to be a controversial policy topic in advertising and
marketing research. It is also a prime subject for investigating
the ethical evaluations of consumers (or
voters). The following study draws from postmodern
communication theory and employs a qualitative
research methodology in order to explore voters’
intimate and subjective views about politics, candidates,
and political advertising. The findings include
emergent themes relating to significant media rituals
in voters’ lives, the cynical perspective of politics as
a ‘game’, and the widespread disapproval and suspicion
with which voters regard negative political
advertising. Additionally, the a priori theme of political
information as ‘disinformation’ was proposed and
expanded upon. Findings are discussed in light of a
greater understanding of the appropriateness of the
traditional versus the postmodern perspective of political
communication, informants’ construction of
‘moral boundaries’ which help them determine right
from wrong, acceptable vs. unacceptable political
behaviours in this particular context.
Introduction
Since President Eisenhower used television commercials
in his 1952 presidential campaign in
the United States, academics and critics have
expressed their concern that politicians are
marketing themselves ‘like soap’ or are somehow
devaluing the democratic political system. Since
this time, politicians have employed the media
in many and varied contexts, ostensibly using it
to create and develop their images, explain their
platforms, and communicate various types of
messages to the public.
Many academics have studies the effects of
political advertising. In a recent comprehensive
article, Faber (1992) summarized the relevant
research, reaching the conclusion that various
streams of research have evolved. The so-called
‘limited effects’ model (see Rothschild, 1978) of
the 1950’s and 1960’s has given way to a contingency
perspective. Political advertising is
believed to work under certain conditions for
certain types of voters and for certain types of
purposes such as image development, agenda
setting, or attacking opponents. The types of
questions which have been asked (and indeed, are
still being asked) include the following: can
political advertising determine the electorate’s
issue agenda (Iyengar and Kinder, 1985)? Do
negative polispots have the potential to damage
the opponent’s credibility and image (James and
Hensen, 1991; Johnson-Cartee and Copeland,
1991; Pfau and Kenski, 1990; Hill, 1989;
Merritt, 1984)? Can political advertising enhance
the sponsor candidate’s image and chances of
being elected (Meadows and Sigelman, 1982)?
Another stream of research, just as critical
but not as extensive as the previous one, seeks
to explore the ethical nature of political advertising,
rather than its efficacy under various conditions
(Banker, 1992; Kaid, 1991; Cooper, 1991;
Cronbeck, 1991; Sabato, 1981). This kind of
inquiry asks the following types of questions:
does political advertising encourage or discourage
voters from participating, thus promoting or
harming the democratic process? Do politicians
exaggerate claims or stretch the truth, creating a
negative impression of the political system
(Garramone, Atkin, Pinkleton, and Cole, 1990)?
A Qualitative Exploration into
Voters’ Ethical Perceptions of
Political Advertising: Discourse,
Disinformation, and Moral Boundaries Steven Kates
Journal of Business Ethics 17: 1871–1885, 1998.
© 1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Can negative advertising create a cynical environment
in which voters are discouraged from
voting? Can advertising from independent parties
(commonly known as political action committees
or PAC’s) influence voters to favour special
interests such as anti-abortion or free trade
(Garramone and Smith, 1984; Garramone,
1985)?
These latter types of questions are undoubtedly
critical in a democratic political system, as
they allude to the perplexing issue of the societal
effects of marketing and advertising. So controversial
are these questions that various governments,
including those of Canada, Great
Britain and the United States, have attempted
to place restrictions upon political communications
during elections through their respective
legislative bodies (Michalos, 1991; Laczniak and
Caywood, 1987; Elebash, 1984; Szybillo and
Heretenbaum (1976). Usually these bills are
denounced as infringements upon the right to
free expression in a democratic society and are
challenged in the courts. Yet, the uneasy question
still remains: do the marketing activities of political
activities have potentially deleterious influence
upon voter turnout and widespread
attitudes toward politicians?
Previous academic studies, including Garramone
et al.’s (1990) have argued that the threat
is more imagined than real. Yet, the media have
generally decried certain campaign activities such
as the controversial ‘Willie Horton’ ad (The
Economist, January 25, 1992) of the presidential
campaign of 1988. Academic work has previously
focused upon experimental studies of the psychological
effects of particular ads (Garramone et
al., 1990; Hill, 1989; Kaid and Boydston, 1987;
Garramone, 1984; Garramone, 1985; Garramone
and Smith, 1984; Merritt, 1984; Kaid, 1976).
While these studies are enlightening up to a
point, they do have serious limitations which
leads one to question the dubious conclusion that
political ads do not harm or prevent a healthy
political debate from occurring during election
time. First, often studies use students and
thus, do not take into account the views of
voters who are from different socio-economic
groups, age groups, or other demographic categories.
Further, and perhaps more seriously, an
experimental study is unable to capture the attitudes
and thoughts of voters during an entire
campaign. The holistic nature or entirety of the
process is left out (Johnson-Cartee and
Copeland, 1991). Longitudinal studies, or those
investigating effects over an appropriate period of
time, are virtually unknown. Certainly, one
polispot may or may not have the effect of alienating
some voters. However, during a campaign
which runs over the course of weeks or months,
a voter may be left with an impression which is
entirely independent of his or her sentiments
toward one political commercial.
A campaign is a conglomerate of political ads,
media coverage, other campaign activities (such
as debates and leaflets), and a number of other
potential influences. Furthermore, much of the
environment’s external stimuli is viewed from
the perspective of candidates’ prior knowledge
and opinions concerning candidates or issues.
Thus, in order to build upon and extend our
current understanding of political advertising’s
impact in society, a phenomenological study was
performed here, exploring a small sample of
voters, to understand and expand upon their
intimate, detailed knowledge and sentiments
concerning campaign advertising and political
communication.
The ethics of political communication
Ethics is, essentially, the discipline of determining
what one ought and out not to do (Tsalikis and
Fritzsche, 1989). Over the last decade, there has
been considerable work in marketing research
studying business ethics (for a comprehensive
review, please see Tsalikis and Fritzsche, 1989) in
various situations (Armstrong, 1992; Vitell and
Muncy, 1992; Hunt and Chonko, 1987; Krohn
and Milner, 1989), and in developing a valid scale
of measuring evaluations of marketing activities
(Reidenbach, Robin, and Dawson, 1991;
Reidenbach and Robin, 1990, 1988). Political
advertising has also been discussed from an ethical
perspective, with Banker (1992) arguing that
negative political advertising in particular is
acceptable as another source of information in
the general ‘marketplace of ideas’ and Kaid
1872 Steven Kates
(1991) reviewing various pertinent issues relating
to the ethical nature of political ads: the truthfulness
of the ads, their manipulative qualities,
and their deceptive technical attributes.
What seems to unite the body of literature in
this area is the positivistic, quantitative orientation
and the implicit assumption that consumers
(or voters) and actors in the private (or public)
realms are able to evaluate information in a
rational, meaningful manner. This ‘traditional’
approach which stresses open debate, choice,
rationality, and democratic process may be contrasted
with a postmodern one which would
explicitly challenge the notion that voters are in
any position to evaluate the veracity of claims,
offer resistance to persuasion, or meaningfully
participate in the political system (Cooper, 1991).
As an alternative to the traditional approach
(Cooper, 1991), thee postmodern perspective on
ethics, as expressed by the French philosopher
Michel Foucault (1980, 1985), views the voter
to be entrapped in a number of previously
created political ‘discourses’ – defined here as the
structuring of reality or the web of historical,
social, political, linguistic and cultural forces
which shape the world (Pronger, 1990). Ethics,
furthermore, is defined as the relationships one
ought to have with oneself and with others
(Foucault, 1980). In contrast to the traditional
perspective which might ask “is ‘truth’ present
in the various forms of political communications?”,
the postmodern perspective begins by
questioning whether the assumptions of freedom
and choice within the existing political discourse
are valid, legitimate ones, for if they are not, then
it is irrelevant whether or not ‘truth’ is contained
within the advertisements of not. For example,
if a voter is unable or unwilling to evaluate the
rational claims in a polispot (due to cynicism,
antipathy toward government or politicians,
laziness, or other reasons), then he or she cannot
become persuaded of the truth. As a minimum,
the political process must provide “truth,
adequate information, and access to channels of
communication” (Cooper, 1991, p. 25). It is with
these very basic assumptions which the postmodernist
perspective takes issue as expressed
quite succinctly by Cooper (1991):
. . . unlike the traditional approaches that take
individual freedom and choice as the ground for
what constitutes ethical behaviour, postmodern
approaches take such individual freedom and
choice to be the end that ethical behaviour seeks.
Consequently, political advocacy can be examined
for its impact on individual freedom and choice.
In the postmodern view, the assumptions
or givens become problematics, according to
Foucault. If the political discourse is such that
the voter is, in fact, unable or unwilling to rationally
evaluate a campaign or participate in the
democratic process – or is subjected to a plethora
of ads which are sponsored and financed by
special interests (which may include those of
mainstream political parties) – then the ‘marketplace
of ideas’ concept described previously
becomes a problematic. Political problematics
may include
. . . the categories of the rhetorical situation. It
tells us neither why certain occasions, speakers, and
topics are privileged, nor what unspoken interests
are served, nor what audiences [are] excluded
(Charland, 1990, p. 262).
In other words, the participation of the ordinary
citizen is significantly constrained by the boundaries
of the ‘received view’ of established discourse
(Foucault, 1980). Within this theoretical
framework, it is questionable whether one may
conceptualize the voter as a rational being exercising
reasonable and independent judgment
within the context of, say, the central route of
the Elaboration Likelihood Model, for example
(Petty and Cacioppo, 1983; Cacioppo and Petty,
1985).
If one accepts that so-called rational persuasion
is not always occurring in the minds of
the electorate, just what is happening? While
not explicitly eluded to in the literature on
political communication, it is likely that the
public is receiving and absorbing quantities of
‘disinformation’ during an election campaign.
Disinformation, a term used extensively in the
field of military intelligence, is defined as follows:
. . . The dissemination of deliberately false information
especially when supplied by government or
its agents to a foreign power or to the media, with
Discourse, Disinformation, and Moral Boundaries 1873
the intention of influencing the policies or
opinions of those who receive it; false information
so supplied (The Oxford English Dictionary;
2nd edition, 1989).
The disinformation point of view (which will
constitute the single a priori theme of this
research, the rest being emergent ones), while
harmonious with the postmodern view of
communication ethics (Foucault, 1984), is not
entirely incongruous with more traditional perspectives
which do explicitly recognize the false
or misleading nature of some polispots (see Kaid,
1991 for a comprehensive summary of specifically
how ads may be false or misleading). What
appears to be the difference between the traditional
view and the postmodernist one is that
with the former, it is automatically assumed that
voters will be able and willing to recognize the
duplicity of misinformation in the vast ‘marketplace
of ideas’ (Banker, 1992) and adjust their
opinions and evaluations appropriately. The latter
view, however, is more likely to postulate that
disinformation becomes a critical element of
accepted discourse, adding oppressive weight in
maintaining the current balance of power. An
analogy similar to this situation is described in
George Orwell’s classic 1984 in which the
Ministry of Truth (which was in charge of lies)
routinely disseminated false information which
was subsequently processed as ‘doublethink’ –
Orwell’s term for the complex web of lies, deceit,
and fabrications (i.e. disinformation) which constituted
his fictional world’s political reality or
discourse.
The purpose of the present study is to investigate
voters’ personal experiences with political
advertising and with disinformation. Some of the
questions which this study attempted to explore,
in the phenomenological tradition, are as follows:
Are voters aware of or critical of the type of
information they are receiving in political
polispots? Do they trust it and do they seem to
be ‘taken in’ by it? Most importantly, do they
consciously construct ‘moral boundaries’ which
dictate standards acceptable versus unacceptable,
right versus wrong as applied to this political
marketing context? What is the level of their
apparent sophistication? The methodology of the
study, the findings, and a discussion of these
findings with implications for future work will
now follow.
Methodology
Qualitative methodology an phenomenological
techniques have made considerable progress over
the last ten years in fields such as marketing
research or consumer research (Hirschman, 1991;
O’Guinn and Feber, 1989; Calder and Tybout,
1987; Lincoln and Guba, 1987; Hirchman,
1986; Kvale, 1983; Glaser and Strauss, 1967).
The purpose of such work is to explore the
consumer (or voter’s) subjective, personal ‘lived
experience’ in rich, thick descriptive terms.
While a number of researchers have researched
and written upon qualitative research methods
such as McCracken (1986), Murray and Ozanne
(1991), and Hirchman (1986), all of the qualitative
perspective share in common an origin of
phenomenology which endeavours to penetrate,
understand, and illuminate the subjective world
view of the participant. While these types of
methods (such as personal interviews or focus
groups) do not make general claims to external
validity among large populations of consumers,
they do have the advantage of being able to
explore the whole or ‘gestalt’ of a phenomenon
among smaller samples, arriving at enlightening
and useful observations. Often, common patterns
and categories arise among participants which
provoke other questions for further research,
often of a quantitative nature.
In this study, ten participants, five men and five
women, all of whom are eligible voters in the
Canadian system, were selected through personal
contacts of the author. Care was taken to ensure
that the participants came from diverse ranges of
ages and occupations. A listing of the participants
with some relevant information is given in the
Figure. Once selected, long interviews (one per
informant) of approximately one hour and a half
to two hours as described by McCracken (1988)
were conducted by the author during the spring
of 1993 (after both the Canadian constitutional
referendum and the American presidential
election in 1992) in order to probe in depth the
1874 Steven Kates
participants’ memories, attitudes, opinions, political
identity, ideologies ‘moral codes,’ and experience
regarding political communications. Ten
participants exceeds the number recommended
by McCracken (which is eight) and is considered
appropriate for research of this type. Interviewing
was performed until redundancy of themes was
discovered. At first, ‘grand tour’ questions were
asked concerning participants media exposure
and personal politics. As the interviews progressed,
more penetrating questions were asked
regarding political advertising, views on political
leaders and past campaigns, and opinions, sentiments
and subjective ‘codes of conduct’ about
the commercials they have personally experi-
enced.
In order to obtain informants, I networked
among my acquaintances in order to find interested
volunteers who are willing to devote the
time. I attempted to interview a diversity of
informants on the criteria of gender, age, and
race in order to receive diverse perspectives
which would both reinforce and challenge my
interpretations. Thus, the age dispersion of the
males and females was coincidental. As the
author, I was also the interviewer and interpreter
of the interviews. I do not claim that this small
sample is representative of the general Canadian,
American or North American population, and
the qualitative, humanistic perspective in which
I am working precludes extrapolation or generalizability.
I also asked informants about their
voting habits, attitudes toward politicians and
political parties, attitudes toward and beliefs
about positive and negative advertisements, media
habits or regimens, political ideologies espoused,
Discourse, Disinformation, and Moral Boundaries 1875
Name Sex Age Comments
Jack M 43 Architect; voted in last federal general election
and in last federal referendum
Ruby F 51 Retired; voted in last federal election and in
last federal referendum
George M 48 Office manager; voted in last federal election
and in last federal referendum
Suzanne F 24 Secretary; voted in last federal referendum
Arthur M 18 High school student; has never voted but is
eligible to vote in upcoming federal election
Cari F 22 Undergraduate arts student; voted in last
federal election and in last federal referendum
Martin M 35 Interior designer; voted in last federal election
and in last federal referendum
Francine F 29 Factor worker; voted in last federal election
Beatric F 77 Retired; voted in last federal election and in
last federal referendum
Murray M 44 Electrician; voted in last federal election and
in last federal referendum
Figure.
interest in the issues, and particularly, I asked
them to tell me what issues they believed were
important and whether political parties and elections
focused upon these issues.
During the interviews, rapport was generally
established between the interviewer and the
participant. While participants were somewhat
uncertain of what was expected at first, they
quickly ‘warmed’ to the topic, expressing with
candour their opinions of political campaigns,
advertising, political parties, and political leaders.
‘Leading’ questions were avoided. Rather, the
interviewer attempted to capture the participants’
independent views of the political world while
imposing a minimum of structure and personal
viewpoint upon them.
Once the interviews were audiotaped, transcribed
and read over several times, the researcher
attempted to ‘sift’ through the data which
was generated. Comparative analysis was made
between interviews to find differences and commonalities
among participants. In keeping
with a phenomenological approach, rather than
attempting to impose a preconceived interpretive
framework upon the data, I searched for
emergent themes which are largely dictated by
the participants’ subject lived experience of political
activity and exposure to media, and are
empirically grounded in the data itself.
Obviously, the postmodernist perspective in
itself dictates a certain bias and an existing predisposition
toward the evaluation of the type
of information under enquiry. The a priori
labelling of even some political ads as ‘disinformation’
is a value judgment. In order to ensure
the integrity of the research findings, I took extra
caution to appear neutral during the field
research so that the participants in the study
would not be prejudiced. I accomplished this
goal by reassuring the informants that I was not
involved with any political party, that their views
would be respected and faithfully conveyed, that
their identities would be kept confidential, and
my primary interest was to discover their own
views on political advertising, media, and political
parties.
As a final step in the process, the participants
were presented with the themes which the
researcher believed relevant to their own interviews.
Such member checks are recommended
to ensure the trustworthiness of the interpretations
(Lincoln and Guba, 1987; Kvale, 1983;
Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The emergent themes
were further discussed with the participants in
order to clear up any misunderstandings which
may have occurred and to further elaborate upon
the meanings of the themes. In almost of all the
cases, the participants agreed that the interviewer
had faithfully and clearly presented the information
and perspectives which they had originally
attempted to convey.
Findings: The ethical nature of political
communication
After reading and interpreting the data and
comparing the various interviews, a number of
coherent themes suggested themselves. These
themes or patterns constitute underlying ideas
or central topics of interests which are shared by
the majority of subjects. In much of the qualitative
literature, themes are either a priori (that
is, suggested by the review of relevant literature
performed prior to the research and expected to
be found in the data) or emergent, the latter
being those which suggest themselves to the
interpreter after the data is read several times
and cross-compared. As stated previously, the one
a priori theme is the recognition of political
advertising as ‘disinformation’. The emergent
themes which arose from the data itself are as
follows: the central place of media rituals – particularly
those including television – in voters’
lives (which is reviewed as instrumental in the
search for objectivity), politics as a game to be
fought and won, and the perceived unethical
nature of the tactics employed in negative political
ads.
Media rituals and the search for objectivity
The centrality and importance of media rituals
– repeated, scripted, and serious actions which
take on a major significance and formality in a
person’s day to day life (Rook, 1985) – became
immediately apparent during the interviews.
1876 Steven Kates
When asked whether they read newspapers, magazines,
or watched news on the television, participants
automatically responded with long lists
of their daily media viewing activities. Here,
‘Jack’, one of the participants, describes his daily
media ‘regimen’:
I have a regime which I follow. In the morning,
it’s CBC morning news on the radio at six, NBC
news on T.V. at six-thirty. I read the Globe [and
Mail] newspaper in the morning if I have time.
There’s lots of news so I pick out bits and pieces.
Then there’s CBC T.V. in the evening . . . – Jack
Well developed media rituals had a place in
every single participant’s life:
I watch the news whenever I’m bored and there’s
nothing else to do, or while eating dinner. –
Arthur
A critical feature of the media rituals is the
selectivity of the participants in accepting or
rejecting certain communication messages. The
interviewees unanimously agreed that they use a
great deal of the media (television and newspapers),
and this overwhelming amount of information
gives them the opportunity to decide for
themselves what is true or not and evaluate
accordingly:
You gotta be choosy about what you watch. What
I mean is that there’s lots of [news] shows, and you
have to watch a few of them to get a good idea of
what’s really going on. – Francine
It’s not very good [coverage of political events].
It’s fairly distorted. You have to read many articles
to find little bits of information. – George
The Conscious acceptance and rejection of
both news and political advertising lends some
empirical credence to Banker’s (1992) conceptualization
of a marketplace of ideas in which
everyone is free to choose among various reports
and for his or her own opinion. Indeed, each
participant in the study was absorbed in discovering
“what was ‘really’ going on” in the world,
paradoxically pursuing a subjective search for
objectivity and truth. One of the chief criticisms
of both media coverage of politics and political
ads was that they were not ‘objective’ enough:
It’s necessary to watch a lot of programs to get a
balanced point of view . . . [news programs] seem
to be somewhat more objective and detailed and
appeal to people’s rationality rather than their
emotions. – Ruby
On the other hand, campaign political ads in
a recent Canadian referendum initiative:
. . . didn’t allow people to sit back and have an
objective view of the issues. – Ruby
Overall, objectivity emerged as a central
feature and a necessary condition for communication
ethics in political advertising. Participants
agreed that for a communication to be “okay”
or moral and its sponsors to be behaving in an
ethical manner, the information contained
therein must be perceived, to a significant degree,
as being free from bias. Objectivity was described
in various ways by participants including “logical
argumentation free of emotions”, “a balanced
point of view”, “what the hell is really going on
in the world”, and “accurate and complete information”.
What participants implicity recognize
is that while elements of the communication
environment may contain lies or distortions, it
is their responsibility to obtain enough information
in order to discount falsehoods and forge
their own version of the truth. In this manner,
communication ethics may be ensured by the
individual utilizing the media.
Most interestingly, it was agreed among participants
that the news provided much more in
depth and objective issue coverage and analysis
than political ads do. This finding is in direct
contradiction to Patterson and McClure’s (1974)
observation that political ads generally are more
issue oriented than news coverage, the latter
tending to cover campaign events without going
into detail or depth on issue analysis. It could
be speculated that in twenty years following the
publication of their book, The Unseeing Eye, news
coverage has gradually evolved into a more analytical
and critical vehicle (particularly after the
Watergate scandal), offering more analysis AND
a wider variety of news programming to viewers.
All speculation aside, nevertheless, political ads
were viewed as peripheral and relatively unimportant
in the context of various media rituals
Discourse, Disinformation, and Moral Boundaries 1877
and in the pursuit of objectivity, while news programming
was, overall, considered indispensable:
Political ads, no matter if they’re positive or
negative will only tell you what the powerful.
political parties WANT you to know. If you don’t
watch the news, you won’t get the facts, you won’t
get analysis, you won’t get an idea of what’s going
on. I don’t know how anyone votes if they don’t
watch any news . . . – Murray
And perhaps the most serious indictment of
political advertising and of advertising in general
in relation to the search for objectivity and truth
is expressed in the following assertion:
Advertising by definition isn’t complete and
accurate. That’s why it’s called advertising.
Otherwise, it would be called information. It’s very
biased information in the sense that it propagates
a point of view. – Ruby
Politics as a game
Both the popular press and academics have noted
widespread voter cynicism and disenchantment
with the political process and government
(Cooper, 1991; Kaid, 1991; Gagnon and Rath,
1991; Maclean’s, January 7, 1991). Even the
interviewer (who was expecting some degree of
pessimism toward the subject matter after
reviewing the literature and watching extensive
media coverage of the 1992 presidential election)
was unprepared by the participants’ high level of
cynicism, anger, and disgust directed toward
politicians, government, and the electoral
process. In this context, political advertising was
viewed as a tactic in a ‘game’, a term used by
many of those interviewed. Participants expressed
the unambiguous opinion that politicians were
often involved in playing a game in which political
power was the stakes and would go to great
lengths to ‘win’. The terminal objective of this
game (i.e. the election) was strictly victory.
According to the subjects, achievements in office
and serving the public was incidental or peripheral
to the all-consuming goal of obtaining office.
Participants referred often to the recent Canadian
referendum (in which voters were expected
by the Progressive Conservation government
to approve critical changes to the Canadian
Constitution) in expressing their skepticism concerning
the political process:
. . . I don’t know. It depends on the intent [of the
political ad]. I got the sense that the idea was to
win a Yes vote notwithstanding anything, win the
game by getting a Yes vote. – Jack
Do you think half of those ****** in power
give a **** what the average Canadian voter wants
or needs? Mulroney was trying to win greater glory
for Mulroney, not for the Canadian people. By
scaring everyone into voting for the referendum,
he would have pulled off a victory for his own government.
It’s just a game, and the government
spent millions of OUR money to win . . . for
itself. – Murray
In the context of viewing elections as a game
to be won, the ethics of politicians, their ads, and
the process itself becomes suspect. Tactics such
as political advertising or other forms of campaigning
are degraded to the level of ‘play’. As
a result, the messages are viewed with suspicion,
and the motives of those sponsoring them are
attributed to the goal of winning, not to any
desire to serve the public:
What if we take the benefit of the doubt and say
that Prime Minister Mulroney believed in his heart
and soul and his mind that the economy would
collapse [if voters voted No in the referendum]?
But I don’t believe that. So he may have been
lying, or might have been playing a game. The
extent of the negativity [referring to certain advertisements
sponsored by the government during the
referendum], how it’s presented to instill panic, and
it’s strictly without a moral background to it. – Jack
According to the participants in this study, in
the game which politicians routinely play during
election time, truth, morality, and faith in the
political process are the most serious casualties.
Political advertising only serves to widely reinforce
this pessimistic outlook.
1878 Steven Kates
The perceived unethical nature of negative political
ads
Previous research has suggested that while
voters generally disapprove of negative political
advertising, they do learn considerable amounts
of information from it (Johnson-Cartee and
Copeland, 1991). This has often been attributed
to the involving nature of negative information
and the resulting depth of cognitive processing
(Johnson-Cartee and Copeland, 1991; Kanouse,
1984; Fiske, 1980; Kanouse and Hanson, 1971).
The data collected in this study, for the most
part, do not contradict these previous findings.
One must question, however, the type of information
which voters recall. Overwhelmingly, the
participants mentioned the alleged affair between
Gennifer Flowers and then governor Bill Clinton
and the draft issue, two themes which the
Republicans publicized during the 1992 presidential
election. Mentions of policy issues such
as health care reform and the state of the
economy were considerably more rare. This phenomenon
may be explained by the Canadian
voters’ lack of interest in specifically American
policy issues, but given the great amounts of
American news to which Canadians are exposed,
it does not reflect any lack of knowledge. It
appears as if the voters interviewed here recalled
the most irrelevant (according to their own evaluations)
information to rational decision making.
Negative political advertising was often
labelled as “extreme”, “fear-mongering”, and
“scare tactics”, aimed at damaging the relationship
of trust between the voters and the candidate
(Roberts, 1991). Consistent with prior
research, negative advertising which attacks upon
personal characteristics was judged by the participants
as unacceptable, unethical and unfair
‘play’ (Johnson-Cartee and Copeland, 1991).
Negative advertising which attacks upon the basis
of issues, however, was considered more acceptable,
but with significant qualification:
What I remember is that the Conservatives’ ad for
the referendum were saying something like ‘vote
for the deal or it’ll destroy the country’. That’s an
issue, I suppose, and it was certainly very negative
but it’s still trying to prey upon people’s fears and
insecurities so that the government will get its way
. . . that’s pretty unfair. They were wrong to try
to get everyone so scared. And it didn’t work. I’m
glad about that. – Cari
I remember ads which were more locally
oriented. There was a hostility there . . . it seemed
really nasty, both ways. When it’s negative, ‘don’t
vote for someone’, I think it’s defeating the
purpose. It’s trying only to win something out of
fear, it’s trying to create a fear in the receiver of
the message, ‘don’t vote for this candidate because
he can ruin something.’ It creates panic. That
disturbs me. – Jack
Thus, issue attack ads which are deemed very
negative and attempt to instill fear were judged
“disturbing” and “unethical” by the participants.
Many of them agreed that while it is generally
acceptable to attack upon the basis of past failures
or issues, it is the extent or extremity of the
negative message which renders an ad unacceptable,
as expressed succinctly by Beatrice: “okay,
okay, so the guy messed up! But the ads are so
extreme. They [referring to the ads] go too far,
and they say nothing, NOTHING, about what
they’re [referring to the sponsoring candidate]
going to do. That stinks!”
Some important and interesting ethical divisions
or moral boundaries – explicit, subjective
distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable
electioneering behaviour – are constructed by the
participants. Negative personal ads were, on the
whole, judged to be both unethical and irrelevant.
For example, while participants acknowledge
that Bill Clinton’s alleged extramarital
activities and lack of military experience did not
enhance their opinion of him, they generally
agreed that the information was irrelevant to
whether or not he would perform well in office.
Moreover, they expressed unequivocal contempt
for the Republican party who were perceived
as having made political capital out of these
‘issues’. These attitudes are generally congruent
with the ‘backlash’ and ‘double impairment’
effects hypothesized to occur after exposure to a
negative message (Johnson-Cartee and Copeland,
1991; Kaid and Boydston, 1987; Merritt, 1984).
The second category of interest was that
including the ethical judgement placed upon
issue-oriented negative ads. Participants agree
that these ads give them relevant information for
Discourse, Disinformation, and Moral Boundaries 1879
their decision-making, and it would be wrong if
such information were censored or suppressed:
I think it’s okey if a candidate says that his
opponent made mistakes or has policies which
aren’t good for the public. I don’t see anything
wrong with that, actually. It’s when every ad you
see on TV or in the news or whatever is negative.
And then they get into this back and forth thing
about saying how lousy and stupid the other one
is and how they’ll mess up in office, etcetera,
etcetera. Then it gets ridiculous, and I ask myself,
‘don’t any of these jerks have any ideas of their own
about how to solve problems or make things
better?’ – Suzanne
Knowledge about this type of moral boundary
should serve as a practical caveat to candidates
and political consultants. While a single negative
ad may be judged ethically or morally acceptable
due to its veracity and relevant information
value, a predominantly negative campaign appears
to have the effect of alienating voters and
degrading the esteem of the democratic process.
Again, it is the EXTENT, not necessarily the
information content or nature, of a negative issue
campaign which creates suspicion and contempt
in the minds of voters:
I think if one candidate has information which he
or she believes the public should know, even
though it’s part of the game or not, then the public
should know. But in this case [referring to the 1992
American presidential election] it comes down to
the extent again . . . it was over and over again. –
Jack
The data gives a clear reading concerning
negative issue ads: while a single ad may be
deemed acceptable, informative, and ethical, a
series of them depreciates their value in all
relevant aspects. Repeatedly attacking an
opponent with multiple ads pushes the envelope
of acceptability too far and goes beyond the
informant’s boundary of acceptable, ethical
conduct.
The meaning of political ‘disinformation’
Are voters critical of the type of information thy
receive in political advertising? Do they scrutinize
it for its veracity, representational faithfulness,
or completeness? Or are voters taken in by
its sophistication and reputed duplicity, allowing
it to become part of accepted political discourse?
The data gathered in this study suggests quite
strongly that the voters interviewed are explicitly
aware of the potentially manipulative quality
of political communication and implicitly, of its
potential to be disinformation. Perhaps the most
(in)famous example of political disinformation in
recent memory is the 1988 ‘Willie Horton’ commercial
which criticized democrat presidential
candidate Michael Dukakis for being ‘soft on
crime’. All of the interviewees had heard of the
ad. One participant explicitly labelled the ‘Willie
Horton’ ad as disinformation:
Willie Horton was disinformation. It was one guy,
one situation. But it was laid out as if it was across
the board. They weren’t letting out all the guys in
prison. They let out one guy. – George
A deeper meaning may be inferred for the
term ‘political disinformation’, gleaned from
the participants’ lived experience. The term is
commonly defined as information which is
false or a lie. However, after examining the interviews
contained herein, disinformation may be
described as true but somehow distorted, and
misleading, as well. It may have been true that
under the Dukakis governorship, certain convicts
were released under a specific program. However,
participants in the study rightly point out that
some negative political advertising presents information
in such a way as to lead viewers to a
spurious inference or generalization. Thus, this
flawed process ultimately leads to an emotionally
charged, questionable understanding of
reality by the public.
It is commonly believed that negative attacks
such as those described above contributed to
Dukakis’ 1988 defeat. Yet, media coverage and
analysis since then (The Economist, January 25,
1992) seems to have raised the awareness and
political sophistication of voters such that they
1880 Steven Kates
recognize the misleading nature of this type
of disinformation. One might attribute the
Republican defeat of 1992 to a type of learning
on a cultural scale. Once a political tactic such
as negative advertising is used, the media facilitates
widespread public criticism and debate of
its efficacy and ethics, and the electorate gradually
begins to question the good faith of political
communication; the informants’ moral
boundaries become more discerning and sophisticated.
It is significant that in the 1992 presidential
election, George Bush’s constant harping
on Clinton’s draft record, extramarital affairs, and
trip to Russia (taking the form of ‘do you trust
this man?’) were all considered ineffectual by the
participants in defeating his opponent. As
Gronbeck (1991) suggests, once used effectively,
negative advertising becomes more commonplace
and then recedes into the background, no longer
effective.
There is another critical aspect to disinformation
which relates directly to the ethical nature
of established political discourse. In the interviews
conducted here, it was seldom questioned
why certain topics or issues were or were not
included in the accepted agenda. To echo
Charland’s comment from above, why are certain
topics, issues, speakers, and political groups ‘privileged’
to communicate or be communicated on
a widespread scale while some are not? All interviewees
implicitly accepted the state of the
economy, health care reform, and even Bill
Clinton’s alleged affair as conventional and
accepted (if not acceptABLE) political agenda.
Yet, consistent with Cooper (1991), the concerns
of marginalized groups such as the poor,
blacks, women and gays were seldom positively
addressed (by the participants AND the candidates
in the presidential election). In this manner,
the current status quo (or power structure) is
maintained in the guise of serving the ‘public’
interest, consistent with Cooper’s (1991) analysis.
Not one of the participants in the study mentioned
or questioned how or why certain topics
arise during an election and are accepted into the
existing political discourse or how it is that access
to media is dominated by certain groups and
individuals (such as politicians or powerful lobby
groups) and not others. While this interesting
omission is hardly evidence of voters’ general
reluctance to establish competing, rival discourses,
it is suggestive of the media’s and of the
government’s ability to set and dominate agenda
items during a political contest. Perhaps the
omission of these generalized concerns represents
another, less tangible but more insidious, characteristic
of disinformation: the incompleteness
(and hence, misleading nature) of political
rhetoric or lack of competing perspectives or
discourses. The moral ethical boundaries could
not condemn what they did not know or
include.
Nevertheless, there were some indications that
a few of the participants were somewhat aware
of the problematic nature of the political agenda
and of the process through which it is set. Two
participants ‘hinted’ at the issue peripherally:
[My friend said that] there is so much we are not
hearing about so that we can’t make a proper
assessment of the news. But I believe we can make
a proper assessment by what’s brought to us. I don’t
believe that we live in a dictatorship or that there
is control over news coverage. That’s my belief and
I believe that we were getting a broad spectrum
of the news . . . – Jack
I don’t understand why they’d [referring to the
government] want to limit what I can spend
making a statement about a federal election. It’s
wrong of them to limit spending. They weren’t
elected to tell us we couldn’t participate in an
election. – George
Yet, despite some participants’ hinting at the
incomplete nature of information and lack of
competing discourses, the majority were far more
likely to criticize and challenge what is said
during an election than to question what remains
unsaid or kept silent.
Summary and conclusions
The findings of this study have important implications
for both academics interested in postmodern
theory as applied to political
communications and to practitioners dedicated
to producing effective, yet ethical, advertising.
These will be detailed below.
Discourse, Disinformation, and Moral Boundaries 1881
How far can one go? What types of ethical
activities violate boundaries or moral sense?
The information obtained from participants
indicates that voters engage in critical media
rituals in which they search for objectivity or
truth. Interestingly, the findings here indicate
the more traditional view, not the postmodern
perspective, of political communication and
discourse may be more appropriate and descriptive
of certain participants’ lived experience.
Suspicion and cynicism appears to have prompted
the development of a process of cultural learning.
Each and every participant was intent upon
establishing his or her own version of the truth
through proactive media rituals and a universal
skepticism toward sources of external communication.
From their examinations of both news
and ads, participants believe that politicians
engage in a game or play for power, wherein
getting elected is the terminal goal, altruistic and
ethical concerns considered as secondary. Also,
negative political ads are looked upon with
extreme suspicion, criticized for their extreme
nature and propensity to inspire fear and exag-
gerate.
On the other hand, consistent with Foucault
(1980, 1985) and with Cooper (1991), there were
indications that the postmodern view has some
application as well. First, this perspective does not
assume a priori that political choice and freedom
exist (Cooper, 1991). Rather, they are goals
which may be achieved. Consistent with this
argument, informants engaged in aggressive
activity in order to create and maintain their
independence of political thought and thus,
make appropriate decisions. Yet, it is interesting
that the informants never once questioned the
underlying ‘right’ of such an a political agenda
or discourse to exist. In other words, it was
unquestionably assumed by participants that the
public interest was being served by debating those
specific issues which the media popularizes. Access
to media, the continued oppression of marginalized
individuals, and questions as to how the
present discourse serves certain interests and not
others, to note some examples, were neither
mentioned nor debated. For example, it was
never brought up whether the entire structure
and process of government or elected representation
(i.e. an underlying premise, given, or
sacrosanct assumption) might be flawed and need
changing. Thus, the political agenda as espoused
by the informants remains somewhat narrow,
suggestive (although by no means conclusive) of
a received political discourse. Future research
could explore this phenomenon in more depth:
how do certain issues and not others come to
dominate voters’ political consciousness? Are
there deleterious effects of certain issues
remaining unspoken?
Overall, from this study’s data, one cannot
confidently claim that a universal, hegemonic
false consciousness – as asserted by more postmodern
views of communication – dominates all
voters’ political thinking. It is more fair to argue
that certain individuals (such as some of the ones
interviewed) are aware that truth and valid points
of view are problematics and make concerted
efforts to be shrewd, discriminating citizens and
voters.
In a more practical vein, the study brought to
light some findings which may assist political
consultants or advertisers in creating more effective,
ethical ads. First, negative campaigns should
be suspect. While certain specific negative
polispots may be judged acceptable (assuming
they contain information which is considered to
be true), practitioners may be well advised to
reconsider remitting ‘bashing’ of political opponents
and focus on positive, constructive ads
which contain substantive ideas for improvement.
Furthermore, manipulative ads which are judged
‘extreme’ or which attempt to create panic or
fear are clearly risky. Voters appear to be learning
the ‘tricks of the trade’ and are more likely to
question such questionable tactics. The lesson?
Those politicians who wish to be viewed in
favourable, credible manner should avoid negative
extremes and attempt to persuade with ads which
are perceived as rational, moderate, and truthful.
Further research which might follow includes
an investigation into whether television news has
improved in issue content, analysis and quality (as
compared to political advertising) over the last
twenty years. Political ads could be tested for
critical aspects such as credibility, truth value, and
perceived relevance to the voters’ decisionmaking
in controlled circumstances. Finally, the
1882 Steven Kates
meaning of disinformation and the testing of
moral boundaries could be explored in the
context of consumer products: what are the
unquestioned beliefs and assumptions which
form the established discourse(s) as relating to
product advertising, and more conventional purchasing
and use occasions? Future research in a
postmodernist or critical (see Murray and
Ozanne, 1991) tradition would certainly be a
productive direction. For example, the media’s
agenda-setting capabilities should be explored in
mor depth, identifying the interests served and
not served.
Clearly, the policy issue explored here is still
of considerable interest and prominence in the
public sphere. While there is discouraging
evidence of widespread cynicism and anger
toward the political system, a hopeful sign has
been revealed in that voters appear as if they are
becoming more discriminating consumers of
information largely by filtering it through media
rituals, a skeptical screen, and ever developing
ethical boundaries. This study has uncovered,
moreover, evidence of a continuing process of
social learning which occurs at the subjective
level. Perhaps this is one way in which the
modern consumer can transform himself or
herself into a citizen once again (Cooper, 1991).
The alternative to heightened interest and participation
in political affairs is, disturbingly, the
belief that the most rational decision is not to
vote at all.
References
Armstrong, Robert: 1992, ‘An Empirical Investigation
of International Marketing Ethics: Problems
Encountered by Australian Firms’, Journal of
Business Ethics 11, 161–171.
Bankre, Steve: 1992, ‘The Ethics of Political
Marketing Practices, The Rhetorical Perspective’,
Journal of Business Ethics 11, 843–848.
Cacioppo, John and Richard Petty: 1985, ‘Central and
Peripheral Routes to Persuasion: The Role of
Message Repetition’, in Linda Alwitt and Andrew
Mitchell (eds.), Psychological Processes and Advertising
Effects (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hilldale,
NJ).
Caldre, Bobby and Alice M. Tybout: 1987, ‘What
Consumer Research Is . . .’, Journal of Consumer
Research 14 (June), 136–140.
Charland, Maurice: 1990, ‘Rehabilitating Rhetoric:
Confronting Blind Spots in Discourse and Social
Theory’, Communication 11, 253–264.
Cooper, Martha: 1991, ‘Ethical Dimensions of
Political Advocacy from a Postmodern Perspective’,
in Roberet Denton (ed.), Ethical Dimensions of
Political Communication (Praeger, New York).
The Economist: 1992, ‘The Lesson of Willie Horton’,
January 25.
Elebash, Camille: 1984, ‘The Americanization of
British Political Communications’, Journal of Advertising
13(3), 50–58.
Faber, Ronald J.: 1992, ‘Advances in Political
Advertising Research: A Progression from If to
When’, Journal of Current Issues and Research in
Advertising 14(2) (Fall).
Fischer, Eileen and Julia Bristor: in press, ‘A Feminist
Poststructuralist Analysis of the Rhetoric of
Marketing Relationships’.
Fiske, Susan: ‘Attention and Weight in Person
Perception: The Impact of Negative and Extreme
Behaviour’, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 38(6), 889–906.
Foucault, Michel: 1980, The History of Sexuality,
Volume One: An Introduction. Trans. Robert Hurley.
(Vintage Books, New York).
Foucault, Michel: 1984, ‘Polemics, Politics, and
Problematizations’, Trans. Lydia Davis. In Paul
Rabinow (ed.), Thee Foucault Reader (Pantheon,
New York), pp. 381–390.
Foucault, Michel: 1985, The Use of Pleasure. Volume
Two of the History of Sexuality. Trans. Robert
Hurle (Pantheon Books, New York).
Gagnon, Georgette and Rath, Dan: 1991, Not
Without Cause: David Peterson’s Fall from Grace
(HarperCollins Publishers Ltd., Toronto).
Garramone, Gina: 1984, ‘Voter Responses to
Negative Political Ads’, Journalism Quarterly 61
(Summer), 250–259.
Garramone, Gina: 1985, ‘Effects of Negative Political
Advertising: The Roles of Sponsor and Rebuttal’,
Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 29(2)
(Spring), 147–159.
Garramone, Gina, Atkin, Charles, Pinkleton, Bruce
and Richard Cole: 1990, ‘Effects of Negative
Political Advertising on the Political Process’,
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 34(3)
(Summer), 299–311.
Garramone, Gina and Sandra Smith: 1984, ‘Reactions
to Political Advertising: Clarifying Sponsor Effects’,
Journalism Quarterly 61 (Winter), 771–775.
Discourse, Disinformation, and Moral Boundaries 1883
Glaser, B. and A. Strauss: 1967, The Discovery of
Grounded Theory (Aldine, Chicago).
The Globe and Mail: March 17, 1993, p. A1.
Gronbeck, Bruce: 1991, ‘Ethical Pivots and Moral
Vantages in American Presidential Campaign
Dramas’, in Robert Denton (ed.), Ethical Dimensions
of Political Communication (Praeger, New
York).
Hill, Ronald Paul: 1989, ‘An Exploration of Voter
Responses to Political Advertisements’, Journal of
Advertising 18(4), 14–22.
Hill, Ronald Paul: 1990, ‘Political Advertising in the
1990’s: Expected Strategies, Voter Resonses, and
Public Policy Implications’, Advances in Consumer
Research 18, 715–719.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C.: 1986, ‘Humanistic Inquiry
in Marketing Research: Philosophy, Method, and
Criteria’, Journal of Marketing Research 23 (August),
237–249.
Hirschman, Elizabeth: 1991, ‘Point of View: Sacred,
Secular, and Mediating Consumption Imagery in
Television Commercials’, Journal of Advertising
Research (December/January), 38–43.
Hunt, Shelby and Lawrence Chonko: 1987, ‘Ethical
Problems of Advertising Agency Executives’,
Journal of Advertising 16(4), 16–24.
Hunt, Shelby and Scott Vitell: 1986, ‘A General
Theory of Marketing Ethics’, Journal of Macromarketing
6, 5–16.
Iyengar, Shanto and Donald Kinder: 1985,
‘Psychological Accounts of Agenda-setting’, in
Richard Perloff and Sidney Kraus (eds.), Mass
Media and Political Thought (Sage Publications,
Beverly Hills).
James, Karen and Paul Hensel: 1991, ‘Negative
Advertising: The Malicous Strain of Comparative
Advertising’, Journal of Advertising XX(2) (June),
53–69.
Johnson-Cartee, Karen and Gary Copeland:
1991, Negative Political Advertising: Coming of
Age (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers,
Hillsdale, N.J.).
Kaid, Lynda Lee: 1991, ‘Ethical Dimensions of
Political Advertising’, in Robert Denton (ed.),
Ethical Dimensions of Political Advertising (Praegere,
New Hgork).
Kaid, Lynda Lee: 1976, ‘Measures of Political
Advertising’, Journal of Advertising Research 16(5)
(October) , 49–53.
Kaid, Lynda Lee and John Boydston: 1987, ‘An
Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of
Negative Political Advertisements’, Communication
Quarterly 35(2) (Spring), 193–201.
Kanouse, David: 1984, ‘Explaining Negativity Biases
in Evaluation and Choice Behaviour: Theory
and Research’, Advances in Consumer Research 11,
703–707.
Kanouse, David and L. Reid Hanson Jr.: 1971,
‘Negativity in Evaluations’, in Edward E. Jones
et al. (eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of
Behaviour (General Learning Press, Morristown,
NJ).
Krohn, Franklin and Laura Milner: 1989, ‘The AIDS
Crisis: Unethical Marketing Leads to Negligent
Homicide’, Journal of Business Ethics 8, 773–780.
Kvale, Steinar: 1983, ‘The Qualitiative Research
Interview: A Phenomenological and Hermeneutical
Mode of Understanding’, Journal of Phenomenological
Psychology 14 (Fall), 171–196.
Laczniak, Gene and Caywood, Clarke: 1987,
‘The Case for and Against Televised Political
Advertising: Implications for Research and Public
Policy’, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 6,
16–32.
Lincoln, Yvonne S. and Egon G. Guba: 1987,
Naturalistic Inquiry (Sage, Beverly Hills).
Maclean’s: January 7, 1991, ‘A Shaken Nation Bares
Its Anger’, pp. 10–11.
McCracken, Grant: 1986, The Long Interview (Sage,
London).
Meadow, Robert and Sigelman, Lee: 1982,
‘Some Effects and Noneffects for Campaign
Commericals’, Political Behaviour 4(2), 163–175.
Merritt, Sharyne: 1984, ‘Negative Political Advertising:
Some Empirical Findings’, Journal of
Advertising 13(3), 27–38.
Michalos, Alex: 1991, ‘Ethical Consideration Regarding
Public Opinion Polling During Election
Campaigns’, Journal of Business Ethics 10, 403–
422.
Murray, Jeff B. And Julie L. Ozanne: 1991, ‘The
Critical Imagination: Emancipatory Interests in
Consumer Research’, Journal of Consumer Research
18 (September), 129–144.
O’Guinn, Thomas C. and Ronald J. Faber:
1989, ‘Compulsive Buying: A Phenomenological
Exploration’, Journal of Consumer Research 16,
(September), 147–157.
Patterson, Thomas and Robert McClure: 1974,
The Unseeing Eye (G. P. Putnam and Sons, New
York).
Petty, Richard and Cacioppo, John: 1983, ‘Central
and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion’, in Larry
Percy and A. Woodside (eds.), Advertising and
Consumer Psychology (Lexington Books, Lexington,
MA).
1884 Steven Kates
Pfau, Michael and Kenski, Henry: 1990, Attack
Politics: Strategy and Defence (Praeger, New York).
Pronger, Brian: 1990, The Arena of Masculinity
(Summerhill Press, Toronto).
Reidenbach, R. Eric and Donald Robin: 1988,
‘Some Initial Steps Toward Improving the
Measurement of Ethical Evaluations of Marketing
Activities’, Journal of Business Ethics 7, 187–879.
Reidenbach, R. Eric and Donald Robin: 1990,
‘Toward the Development of a Multidimensional
Scale for Improving Evaluations of Business Ethics’,
Journal of Business Ethics 9, 639–653.
Reidenbach, R. Eric, Donald Robin and Lyndon
Dawson: 1991, ‘An Application and Extension
of a Multidimensional Ethics Scale to Selected
Marketing Practices and Marketing Groups’, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science 19(2), 83–92.
Roberts, Marilyn: ‘Political Advertising: Applications
for Political Symbolism’, in Rebecca Holman (ed.),
Proceedings of the 1991 Conference of The American
Academy of Advertising, pp. 122–128.
Rook, Dennis, W.: 1985, ‘The Ritual Dimension of
Consumer Behaviour’, Journal of Consumer Research
12 (December), 251–264.
Rothchild, Michael: 1978, ‘Political Advertising: A
Neglected Policy Issue in Marketing’, Journal of
Marketing Research XV (Feb.), 58–69.
Sabato, Larry: 1981, The Rise of Political Consultants
Basic Books Inc., New York).
Szybillo, George and Hartenbaum, Ronald: 1976,
‘Political Advertising and the Broadcast Media’,
Journal of Advertising 5(4), 42–46.
Tsalikis, John and David Fritzsche: 1989, ‘Business
Ethics: A Literature Review with a Focus on
Marketing Ethics’, Journal of Busineess Ethics 8,
695–743.
Vitell, Scott and James Muncy: 1992, ‘Consumer
Ethics: An Empirical Investigation of Factors
Influencing Ethical Judgmnts of the Final Consumer’,
Journal of Business Ethics 11, 585–597.
University of Northern British Columbia,
Prince George,
Canada
Discourse, Disinformation, and Moral Boundaries 1885