MAGA Inc., a prominent super PAC that championed Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign, recently launched a 30-second commercial on TV channels in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The expenditure on this ad campaign has reached approximately $4.4 million for the past week. This brief write-up will scrutinize the advertisement, assessing its accuracy, and emphasizing the principal takeaway.
The advertisement commences with an interesting visual contrast. A youthful image of Kamala Harris, during her tenure as San Francisco’s district attorney, is prominently displayed. Adjacent to this, a mugshot of Devaughndre Broussard, a defendant prosecuted by Ms. Harris’s office, appears. Broussard was charged with assault and robbery on a transit passenger, eventually sentenced to probation. Following a year of probation, Broussard admitted to a more severe crime – the murder of a newspaper editor.
The ad continues, narrated by a deep-voiced individual whose tone provides an ominous feel. As images of Ms. Harris in her role as a prosecutor glide across the screen, bold headlines blink into view: ‘Liberally-biased Kamala Harris set murderers free’, ‘Kamala Harris prioritized offenders’ etcetera. Soon after, the video features a bouquet of roses resting upon a slick, black coffin, inferring a sense of doom.
Subsequent visuals spotlight a news story about Jessica Lunsford, a nine-year-old girl from Miami who was tragically raped and killed. This horrific incident prompted the implementation of laws aimed at maintaining distance between sex offenders and children. A mugshot of her offender is displayed alongside this clip, augmenting the narrative’s intensity. The video then criticizes Ms. Harris, alleging that as California’s Attorney General, she disregarded ‘Jessica’s Law’ and ‘permitted convicted sex criminals to live nearby schools and parks’.
To accentuate the allegations against Ms. Harris, the advertisement exhibits an empty child’s swing in black-and-white, swaying ominously. As the advertisement draws to an end, it showcases more images of Ms. Harris, wrapping up with footage of her laughing during her Democratic National Convention speech, the moment seemingly paused in slow motion. The final headline reiterates the criticism towards Ms. Harris, cautioning, ‘Kamala Harris consistently prioritizes felons. Don’t let America be her next casualty.’
The advertisement’s script includes narration, ‘Liberal Kamala Harris released murderers while serving as San Francisco’s D.A. As California Attorney General, Kamala continued prioritizing criminals. After a minor girl was sexually assaulted and buried alive, laws were enacted to distance sex offenders from children. Kamala neglected Jessica’s Law, allowing sex offenders to reside near schools and parks. Kamala Harris has always prioritized criminals. America shouldn’t become her next victim.’
On examining the accuracy of the ad, we look to facts on the ground. Broussard was an 18-year-old when convicted for assault and robbery in 2005, the crime recorded by a security camera. The case involved three other juveniles. Ms. Harris’s office justified probation under the grounds of Broussard being a first offender and ambiguity over who committed the specific crimes among the assailants. Broussard was later given a 25-year term for killing Chauncey Bailey in 2007.
The advertisement’s more dramatic claim revolves around an assertion that Ms. Harris neglected Jessica’s Law intentionally. Jessica’s Law was enacted following the rape and murder of Jessica Lunsford in Florida in 2005. It harshened penalties for sex offenders while restricting them from living within 2000 feet of any schools or parks. Forty-four states adopted similar laws.
Contrary to the advertisement, Ms. Harris, a seasoned sex-crimes prosecutor, supported Jessica’s Law. She defended the law when a county judge attempted to block it in 2011 and appealed against that ruling right up to the California Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruling softened the restrictions against sex offenders after their argument that these limitations made it impossible for them to find housing won.
While this ruling was specific to San Diego County, Ms. Harris’s office interpreted it as universally applicable across California. As a result, she instructed California’s correctional system to halt the uniform application of residential restrictions on all sex offenders. Nevertheless, sex predators, especially those whose victims were children aged below 14, remained prohibited from living near schools. Restrictions for other offenders were determined on a case-by-case basis.
The key takeaway of this ad is discerning how it ties into a broader narrative. It forms a section of a $100 million advertising campaign targeted towards swing states. Ms. Harris is portrayed with a crucial spin: a radical leftist, particularly on crime-regulation. This forms a tried and tested Republican law and order pitch reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s era.
The advertisement also aims to block Ms. Harris’s initiative to switch to the center. Ms. Harris has concentrated on emphasizing her background as a district attorney. This is supposedly to alleviate voters’ worry that her political leanings might be excessively liberal, thereby subtly influencing perceptions.
Moreover, the ad’s broad strategy seeks to shape voter perception of Ms. Harris. Some voters report their need to know more about her. Shopping for information using media sources their natural instinct, an aspect that the advertisement exploits, pushing for a specific image narrative to influence these voters.
In conclusion, the role of a media critique is to discern not only the overt but also the hidden messages and implications inherent in any piece of communication. In doing so, it uncovers truths and falsehoods, highlighting biases and attempts at manipulation. In this case, the examination of a political advertisement provides insight into the strategies and characterizations employed with the aim of swaying public perception and decision-making.
Politics, media, and the strategic use of information form the backbone of how public opinion is shaped and decisions are made. It is, therefore, vital to question, interrogate and dissect the accuracy, context, and possible implications of advertisements like this in an effort to promote conscientious and informed decision-making among the citizenry.
Always be aware that political advertising is rarely without an agenda, carefully scrutinizing the supposed ‘facts’ being presented. In a world saturated with information and narratives, it is crucial that we equip ourselves with the acuity to distinguish fact from fiction, strategy from honest presentation, and reality from exaggeration.