With one week to go until voting ends in a critical midterm election we’re looking at political violence and negative ads.
Plus: Join us on Tues Nov 15 at noon ET for a conversation about the World Cup in Qatar, sports journalism and human rights with Prof. Silvio Waisbord (GW), Grant Wahl (soccer journalist) and Prof. Neha Vora (Lafayette College). Cosponsored with the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication.
Register here.
What We’re Reading - Political Violence
“…fear and anger raise money, turn out votes and get you on television. They also have real world consequences…it’s not enough to condemn the violence afterwards. You have to act in ways that make that violence less likely to happen.” - Project Director Peter Loge on “Morning Rush”
The brutal attack on Paul Pelosi, husband of US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has led to a predictable round of “this shouldn’t happen but it’s their fault remember that time when…” rather than an honest assessment what causes political violence and how to keep it from getting worse.
The New York Times Pelosi Attack Highlights Rising Fears of Political Violence
”The assault of the House speaker’s husband inside their home comes as threats against members of Congress have increased in recent years.”
Rachel Kleinfeld in the Journal of Democracy, The Rise of Political Violence in the United States
”Recent alterations to violent groups in the United States and to the composition of the two main political parties have created a latent force for violence that can be 1) triggered by a variety of social events that touch on a number of interrelated identities; or 2) purposefully ignited for partisan political purposes.”
New America Preventing Political Violence in America
”Political Reform's research suggests four kinds of interventions that can prevent and mitigate political violence.”
What We’re Asking
What should candidates and campaigns be saying this week to prevent more violence from happening next week?
What else can be done to ensure sharp rhetoric doesn’t turn into violence?
What We’re Reading - Going Negative
Promoting or creating the conditions for political violence is antithetical to democracy. But playing hard (and sometimes dirty) is as old as the republic.
Voters deserve to know the good, the bad and the ugly about candidates - if it is true and relevant.
CNN, Fact check: The GOP’s dishonesty-filled barrage of ‘defund the police’ attack ads
”Republicans have been running ads around the country that use a variety of dishonest tactics to try to create the inaccurate impression that the Democratic candidates they are targeting support defunding the police.”
The Hill, Air Force improperly released records on GOP candidate’s sexual assault
”…the file was actually improperly released to an opposition research firm, which is how they were presumably later given a Politico reporter.”
PBS NewsHour The ethical dos and don’ts of opposition research (video)
”there are legal lines and then there are also just decency boundaries…”
Hilary Krieger interview with Alan Huffman in FiveThirtyEight, An Introduction to the Dark Arts of Opposition Research
”People have been doing oppo for centuries. It’s just what you do: You try to find out the strengths and weaknesses of your opponent. I don’t really know when it sort of morphed into also finding out your own strengths and weaknesses. But the attacks that were made on political candidates go back to the origins of the country.”
What We’re Asking
What personal information, if any, does the public deserve to know about candidates?
What responsibility do the media have to ignore personal information, or information about candidates that don’t obviously have anything to do with their fitness for office?
Let us know what you think.
Keep with all the goings-on on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. Tell your friends.