However, in reading his piece, it becomes very obvious very quickly that his thesis is merely a thinly veiled excuse to attack Thomas Mulcair and the upbeat ad that is intended to introduce him to the electorate:
Complaining that the ad is vacuous and provides no information to help the voter make an informed decision, he goes on to extol attack ads:
Ironically, it’s the much maligned negative ads that are much more likely to focus on the nitty-gritty of where a candidate stands on policies.
Just think about your typical attack ad: “Candidate Jones wants to raise taxes on everything!” or “A vote for candidate Smith is a vote to destroy our public health-care system”.
In short, attack ads often raise issues people actually care about. And this is one reason why, like them or not, negative spots resonate with voters.
Oh really? I have said it before and I'll say it again: attack ads, in my view, have a twofold purpose: the most obvious is to denigrate a political opponent, as evidenced in the latest Tory effort to discredit Bob Rae; the second and more insidious effect is to discourage citizens from participating in the politcal process, especially at election time, leaving the field open to the 'true believers, the die-hard supporters of Stephen Harper.
And it is for the latter reason that I will never be able to forgive Harper for the damage he has done and will continue to do to the soul of our nation.
UPDATE: For a cross-section of Star readers' views on Nichols' piece, click here.
