“Truth boxes”
Media monitoring of TV campaign ads
Some news media are adding television campaign ads to their watchdog responsibilities.
By Robin Hughes, editor
Some newspapers call them "truth boxes," others call them "ad watches." The text of a candidate’s television commercial is given, accompanied by a reporter’s analysis of the truth of the campaign statements made in the ad.
The truth boxes represent a new and growing effort this election to monitor political advertising on TV. They also represent acknowledgment by the print media of the power of the tube: Elections today are determined by 30-second TV spots, not by what the candidate says in policy statements or at the Kiwanis Club.
Los Angeles Times media writer Thomas Rosenstiel said that newspapers had been on a "nostalgia trip" in the way they covered campaigns. "The irony of political coverage by newspapers in this country is that the reporters frequently never saw what the voters saw, they never saw the nightly news because they were traveling with candidates. So, they were covering, essentially, the wrong campaign."
The L.A. Times is often credited with starting the truth box movement. Julie Wilson, who was the Times’s political editor and is now editor of its Ventura County edition, said when the Times first started analyzing ads, candidates and their managers were shocked and angry. She said now they accept the truth boxes as routine. "When campaigns launch an ad, they either invite us to a showing or they send us a tape . . . with documentation," said Wilson. "They send us their own truth boxes."
The Sacramento Bee also ran truth boxes. Bill Endicott, The Bee’s capitol bureau chief, said he believes the boxes made campaigns realize that "they can’t put out totally unsupported charges."
Some television newsrooms have also gotten into the act of monitoring ads on their own stations. WVUE in Austin, TX, put spots for gubernatorial candidates to the truth test. The first test on an ad for Clayton Williams resulted in the candidate pulling the ad and changing it.
Not everyone agrees that the truth boxes really have had any impact. Marc Chimes of Nordlinger Associates, a Washington-based political consulting firm, said "I don’t think anything is being revealed, resolved, or cleared up." Chimes said the truth boxes have not had any effect on races in which he has been involved.
Chimes also questions whether it’s the media’s role to analyze ads, since usually deception is not involved, but "shadings of truth," which is a subjective matter.
The subjective nature of truth boxes worries many journalists. Wilson of the L.A. Times said "we wanted to make sure we weren’t stepping over that line between news analysis and editorial statements." Other papers resolved the dilemma by giving the ad reporter the editorial license of a movie critic or columnist.
Critics point out that political spots are paid advertisements. Why should they be subject to closer scrutiny than other ads? Endicott of The Bee says the answer is simple: "These people are running for public office and asking people to vote for them. I think it’s comparing apples and oranges to compare elected officials to Sears Roebuck."
Ted Glasser, a journalism ethics professor at Stanford University, said analyzing ads is consistent with the media’s watchdog role. "The press is supposed to be involved in reporting and commenting on public affairs. Political advertising is the quintessential form of public affairs these days, fortunately or unfortunately."
Glasser is concerned the ad analysis being done doesn’t go far enough. Journalists need to look beyond the "factual accuracy of the ads" to the message the visual imagery conveys. Some newspapers are trying to do this.
Ironically, truth boxes which are, in part, a reaction to the negative campaigning in 1988, are being used for negative campaign ads by opponents. The L.A. Times’s Rosenstiel believes it’s not the job of journalists to stop attack ads. "Mudslinging is an old and cherished tradition in this country. All we can hope to do is referee the sport so that it’s handled properly."
Interviews and research for this article were done by staff writer Julie Kredens.
Source: FineLine: The Newsletter On Journalism Ethics, vol. 2, no. 8 (November/December 1990), p. 5.
This case was produced for FineLine, a publication of Billy Goat Strut Publishing, 600 East Main Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202. Reprinted with the permission of Billy Goat Strut Publishing. This case may be reproduced for classroom and research purposes. Publication of this case in electronic or printed form requires written permission from the publisher and Indiana University. An exception is granted for use in readers designed for specific academic courses.
March 31st, 2008 at 8:22 pm
My oponion on “truth-boxes” are a good thing.
I think they are good thing because it helps them now wats the difference between a true and false statement.
Or whether someone is lying about something going in the media.
March 31st, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I think that the “truth boxes”
are very helpful for the readers because it helps you understand more about what the reader is reading about.
I just think they are very helpful and more newspapers should comtinue usuing them.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:25 am
I don’t think that the truth-boxes play that much of a role in the campaigns but i think it does clarify a lot of things about the candidate.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:43 am
“Truth-boxes” simple express what a journalists feels about the ad. The journalist will tell the truth of the ad and if it happens to disagree with the ad then it is up to the reader to go with which one they think is right. Yes, “Truth-boxes” are very helpful for readers because it helps them to understand what the ad is actually representing and what it is asking of them to do. But “truth-boxes” can also change the view that a reader had because the information they read is something they do not agree with.
“Truth-boxes” bring different views to the table and it is up to the reader to know their own research and see what it “true” for themselves.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I agree with Christina, I bealieve if some journalists feel like the Truth-boxes are not to their liking they will write about something that will make the readers lean torwards their own opinion.
And its seems like they are stepping over that line between news analysis and editorial statements.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I think this was a good idea for them to add them in newspapers.Because they tell the truth about the political ads.
“The truth boxes represent a new and growing effort this election to monitor political advertising on TV.”
April 1st, 2008 at 8:15 pm
I think the “truth boxes” were a great idea because they give the journalist’s point of view about the ad, and it gives the reader a chance to read another person’s opinion with different point of view. People can them decide for themselves which point of view they want to have about political ads.
April 1st, 2008 at 8:33 pm
I think that these “Truth Boxes” can both be effective to some people and pointles to others depending on their opinion. In my point of view, I find them effective because they simply just explain things and help the reader comprehend what’s going on. The reporters analyze the information given with their own opinion and it’s pretty much up to you or whoever to simply agree or disagree with it.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:27 pm
I think that “truth boxes” are kind of stupid an ineffective. They are basically telling journalists what THEY think is the truth, and we’re supposed to base OUR opinions on THEIR ideas. I don’t like it.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
In my opinion “truth boxes” are self explanitory. Although some people may see them as an offense, in reality it’s peoples opinions. Everyone has one. Some opinions may be racial or often times offending, but majority of the time it’s just an assumption. Like the story said, “…truth boxes have not had any effect on races in which he has been involved.” “Truth boxes” in my opinion are ways people can express themselves honestly. Which in turn gives the name “TRUTH boxes”
April 8th, 2008 at 1:39 am
The use of “truth boxes” shouldn’t be thought as offensive by candidates. They just add an opinion that can be taken into consideration or not. Depends on the reader to make the information useful and actually base and opinon off it.
Truth boxes are not meant to effectively attack candidates’ ads but analyze them. Its up to the journalist not to cross that line.
November 4th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
I think that truth boxes are ridiculous. How is it alright to only monitor certain adds? This infringes on the candidates right to say what they want. The public should have enough common sense to sensor the false claims a politician makes. The people that view the ads/monitor the “truthfulness” of them only show their opinion, which is not ethical in news and doesn’t matter.
August 19th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I recall the early truth boxes in the LA Times and the Sacramento Bee. They were a good development but not transformative. I found them often too pedantic and technical, not nearly the improvement that advocates and originators wanted to assert. I’m not sure many people — beyond the highly mobilized political watchers — read them and weighed the evidence.
That said, just knowing someone was going to parse an ad in public might help to reduce some exaggerations in political ads.
Ted Glasser is correct in suggesting the effect of comparing an ad’s points to the facts often was insufficient. In many cases, the larger effect of an ad needs to be considered, not simply the specifics of a claim.