Deception in Third Party Advertising in the 2012 Presidential Campaign

In this article, we profile the advertising activities and deception levels of the top 2012 spending independent expenditure groups that focused on the presidential contest. From December 1, 2011, through Election Day, November 6, 2012, independent expenditure groups spent more than $360 million on...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The American behavioral scientist (Beverly Hills) 2014-04, Vol.58 (4), p.524-535
Hauptverfasser: Winneg, Kenneth M., Hardy, Bruce W., Gottfried, Jeffrey A., Jamieson, Kathleen Hall
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 535
container_issue 4
container_start_page 524
container_title The American behavioral scientist (Beverly Hills)
container_volume 58
creator Winneg, Kenneth M.
Hardy, Bruce W.
Gottfried, Jeffrey A.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall
description In this article, we profile the advertising activities and deception levels of the top 2012 spending independent expenditure groups that focused on the presidential contest. From December 1, 2011, through Election Day, November 6, 2012, independent expenditure groups spent more than $360 million on presidential television advertising, according to Kantar Media CMAG. More than a fifth of the dollars spent by the top groups purchased ads containing at least one claim judged as misleading by independent fact checkers. The proportion of dollars that these groups spent on ads containing at least one deception was much greater during the primaries than afterward. During the primaries, the pro-Romney super PAC “Restore Our Future” led the pack both in dollars spent on ads containing at least one deception and in the proportion of its ads found deceptive by the fact checkers. During the general election, in the post-primary period, the pro-Obama super PAC “Priorities USA Action” devoted the most dollars and greatest proportion of its total dollars to ads in which fact checkers found at least one deceptive claim. During some but not all of the 2012 election year, the percentage of third party ads containing at least one deceptive claim was higher among those groups not required to disclose their donors than it was among those required to do so.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0002764214524358
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1531931817</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0002764214524358</sage_id><sourcerecordid>3248028511</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-8a82320bc34b903805408dd50b5e12d1983e87334d0cc45eef877af8d8e0251b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkc1Lw0AQxRdRsFbvHgNevERn9sPdHEu1KhTsoZ7DJjtpt6RJ3U2F_vcm1IMIgqfh8X7vwfAYu0a4Q9T6HgC4fpAcpeJSKHPCRqgUT4UweMpGg50O_jm7iHHTS9CKj9jskUradb5tEt8ky7UPLlnY0B2Sifuk0Pnom9VgdWtKOCBPFoGid9R03tbJ1G531q-aS3ZW2TrS1fcds_fZ03L6ks7fnl-nk3laCq261FjDBYeiFLLIQBhQEoxzCgpFyB1mRpDRQkgHZSkVUWW0tpVxhoArLMSY3R57d6H92FPs8q2PJdW1bajdxxyVwEygQf0_lOsMZY_e_EI37T40_SM9BdqA0Wqg4EiVoY0xUJXvgt_acMgR8mGD_PcGfSQ9RqJd0Y_Sv_gvRSOCGA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1507808754</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Deception in Third Party Advertising in the 2012 Presidential Campaign</title><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Winneg, Kenneth M. ; Hardy, Bruce W. ; Gottfried, Jeffrey A. ; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall</creator><creatorcontrib>Winneg, Kenneth M. ; Hardy, Bruce W. ; Gottfried, Jeffrey A. ; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall</creatorcontrib><description>In this article, we profile the advertising activities and deception levels of the top 2012 spending independent expenditure groups that focused on the presidential contest. From December 1, 2011, through Election Day, November 6, 2012, independent expenditure groups spent more than $360 million on presidential television advertising, according to Kantar Media CMAG. More than a fifth of the dollars spent by the top groups purchased ads containing at least one claim judged as misleading by independent fact checkers. The proportion of dollars that these groups spent on ads containing at least one deception was much greater during the primaries than afterward. During the primaries, the pro-Romney super PAC “Restore Our Future” led the pack both in dollars spent on ads containing at least one deception and in the proportion of its ads found deceptive by the fact checkers. During the general election, in the post-primary period, the pro-Obama super PAC “Priorities USA Action” devoted the most dollars and greatest proportion of its total dollars to ads in which fact checkers found at least one deceptive claim. During some but not all of the 2012 election year, the percentage of third party ads containing at least one deceptive claim was higher among those groups not required to disclose their donors than it was among those required to do so.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-7642</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-3381</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0002764214524358</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ABHSAU</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Advertisements ; Advertising ; Deception ; Elections ; Expenditures ; False advertising ; Mass Media ; PAC ; Political action committees ; Political campaigns ; Political finance ; Presidential Campaigns ; Presidential elections ; Presidents ; Primaries &amp; caucuses ; Primary Elections ; Studies ; Television ; Television advertising ; United States of America</subject><ispartof>The American behavioral scientist (Beverly Hills), 2014-04, Vol.58 (4), p.524-535</ispartof><rights>2014 SAGE Publications</rights><rights>Copyright SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. Apr 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-8a82320bc34b903805408dd50b5e12d1983e87334d0cc45eef877af8d8e0251b3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0002764214524358$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002764214524358$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21817,27922,27923,33772,33773,43619,43620</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Winneg, Kenneth M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hardy, Bruce W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gottfried, Jeffrey A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jamieson, Kathleen Hall</creatorcontrib><title>Deception in Third Party Advertising in the 2012 Presidential Campaign</title><title>The American behavioral scientist (Beverly Hills)</title><description>In this article, we profile the advertising activities and deception levels of the top 2012 spending independent expenditure groups that focused on the presidential contest. From December 1, 2011, through Election Day, November 6, 2012, independent expenditure groups spent more than $360 million on presidential television advertising, according to Kantar Media CMAG. More than a fifth of the dollars spent by the top groups purchased ads containing at least one claim judged as misleading by independent fact checkers. The proportion of dollars that these groups spent on ads containing at least one deception was much greater during the primaries than afterward. During the primaries, the pro-Romney super PAC “Restore Our Future” led the pack both in dollars spent on ads containing at least one deception and in the proportion of its ads found deceptive by the fact checkers. During the general election, in the post-primary period, the pro-Obama super PAC “Priorities USA Action” devoted the most dollars and greatest proportion of its total dollars to ads in which fact checkers found at least one deceptive claim. During some but not all of the 2012 election year, the percentage of third party ads containing at least one deceptive claim was higher among those groups not required to disclose their donors than it was among those required to do so.</description><subject>Advertisements</subject><subject>Advertising</subject><subject>Deception</subject><subject>Elections</subject><subject>Expenditures</subject><subject>False advertising</subject><subject>Mass Media</subject><subject>PAC</subject><subject>Political action committees</subject><subject>Political campaigns</subject><subject>Political finance</subject><subject>Presidential Campaigns</subject><subject>Presidential elections</subject><subject>Presidents</subject><subject>Primaries &amp; caucuses</subject><subject>Primary Elections</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Television</subject><subject>Television advertising</subject><subject>United States of America</subject><issn>0002-7642</issn><issn>1552-3381</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkc1Lw0AQxRdRsFbvHgNevERn9sPdHEu1KhTsoZ7DJjtpt6RJ3U2F_vcm1IMIgqfh8X7vwfAYu0a4Q9T6HgC4fpAcpeJSKHPCRqgUT4UweMpGg50O_jm7iHHTS9CKj9jskUradb5tEt8ky7UPLlnY0B2Sifuk0Pnom9VgdWtKOCBPFoGid9R03tbJ1G531q-aS3ZW2TrS1fcds_fZ03L6ks7fnl-nk3laCq261FjDBYeiFLLIQBhQEoxzCgpFyB1mRpDRQkgHZSkVUWW0tpVxhoArLMSY3R57d6H92FPs8q2PJdW1bajdxxyVwEygQf0_lOsMZY_e_EI37T40_SM9BdqA0Wqg4EiVoY0xUJXvgt_acMgR8mGD_PcGfSQ9RqJd0Y_Sv_gvRSOCGA</recordid><startdate>201404</startdate><enddate>201404</enddate><creator>Winneg, Kenneth M.</creator><creator>Hardy, Bruce W.</creator><creator>Gottfried, Jeffrey A.</creator><creator>Jamieson, Kathleen Hall</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201404</creationdate><title>Deception in Third Party Advertising in the 2012 Presidential Campaign</title><author>Winneg, Kenneth M. ; Hardy, Bruce W. ; Gottfried, Jeffrey A. ; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-8a82320bc34b903805408dd50b5e12d1983e87334d0cc45eef877af8d8e0251b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Advertisements</topic><topic>Advertising</topic><topic>Deception</topic><topic>Elections</topic><topic>Expenditures</topic><topic>False advertising</topic><topic>Mass Media</topic><topic>PAC</topic><topic>Political action committees</topic><topic>Political campaigns</topic><topic>Political finance</topic><topic>Presidential Campaigns</topic><topic>Presidential elections</topic><topic>Presidents</topic><topic>Primaries &amp; caucuses</topic><topic>Primary Elections</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Television</topic><topic>Television advertising</topic><topic>United States of America</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Winneg, Kenneth M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hardy, Bruce W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gottfried, Jeffrey A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jamieson, Kathleen Hall</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>The American behavioral scientist (Beverly Hills)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Winneg, Kenneth M.</au><au>Hardy, Bruce W.</au><au>Gottfried, Jeffrey A.</au><au>Jamieson, Kathleen Hall</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Deception in Third Party Advertising in the 2012 Presidential Campaign</atitle><jtitle>The American behavioral scientist (Beverly Hills)</jtitle><date>2014-04</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>58</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>524</spage><epage>535</epage><pages>524-535</pages><issn>0002-7642</issn><eissn>1552-3381</eissn><coden>ABHSAU</coden><abstract>In this article, we profile the advertising activities and deception levels of the top 2012 spending independent expenditure groups that focused on the presidential contest. From December 1, 2011, through Election Day, November 6, 2012, independent expenditure groups spent more than $360 million on presidential television advertising, according to Kantar Media CMAG. More than a fifth of the dollars spent by the top groups purchased ads containing at least one claim judged as misleading by independent fact checkers. The proportion of dollars that these groups spent on ads containing at least one deception was much greater during the primaries than afterward. During the primaries, the pro-Romney super PAC “Restore Our Future” led the pack both in dollars spent on ads containing at least one deception and in the proportion of its ads found deceptive by the fact checkers. During the general election, in the post-primary period, the pro-Obama super PAC “Priorities USA Action” devoted the most dollars and greatest proportion of its total dollars to ads in which fact checkers found at least one deceptive claim. During some but not all of the 2012 election year, the percentage of third party ads containing at least one deceptive claim was higher among those groups not required to disclose their donors than it was among those required to do so.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/0002764214524358</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0002-7642
ispartof The American behavioral scientist (Beverly Hills), 2014-04, Vol.58 (4), p.524-535
issn 0002-7642
1552-3381
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1531931817
source Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Sociological Abstracts; SAGE Complete A-Z List; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Advertisements
Advertising
Deception
Elections
Expenditures
False advertising
Mass Media
PAC
Political action committees
Political campaigns
Political finance
Presidential Campaigns
Presidential elections
Presidents
Primaries & caucuses
Primary Elections
Studies
Television
Television advertising
United States of America
title Deception in Third Party Advertising in the 2012 Presidential Campaign
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T05%3A38%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Deception%20in%20Third%20Party%20Advertising%20in%20the%202012%20Presidential%20Campaign&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20behavioral%20scientist%20(Beverly%20Hills)&rft.au=Winneg,%20Kenneth%20M.&rft.date=2014-04&rft.volume=58&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=524&rft.epage=535&rft.pages=524-535&rft.issn=0002-7642&rft.eissn=1552-3381&rft.coden=ABHSAU&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0002764214524358&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3248028511%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1507808754&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0002764214524358&rfr_iscdi=true