"Dark Art of Opposition Research"

If you would stop a voter on the street, much like a pollster does, and inquired of the voter why he voted for such and such a candidate, I’d wager that the voter would mumble some words to the effect that such and such a candidate seemed like the best choice.  Bah.  More than likely, if you asked the voter to expand on why such and such a candidate seemed to be the best choice, the voter would respond with some sound bite taken from those who practice the dark art of opposition research.

The Atlantic has an interesting piece of the dark art mentioned above.  It is titled “Playing Dirty." An excerpt.

"Maligning an opponent, even with his own words and deeds, is a tricky business; voters take a dim view of “negative” politics, and are liable to punish the campaign carrying out the attacks rather than the intended target. Digging the Dirt provides a rare glimpse of how political operatives have learned to use the media to get around this problem, by creating a journalistic black market for damaging stories. During the first debate between Gore and Bush, in October of 2000, the BBC crew stationed itself inside the RNC’s war room, filming researchers as they operated with the manic intensity of day traders, combing through every one of Gore’s statements for possible misstatements or exaggerations. The researchers discovered two (Gore erroneously claimed never to have questioned Bush’s experience, and to have accompanied a federal official to the site of a Texas disaster), and immediately Tim Griffin tipped off the Associated Press. Soon the filmmakers would catch the team exulting as the AP took the story."

Also via Arts & Letters Daily.

Posted by on 05/19 at 03:05 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Which is It? Both?

Previous entry: How Much is That Doggie in the Window?, Realistically

<< Back to main