Distinctions appear blurred

Re “Positive negativity,” Opinion, March 17

John G. Geer and Ken Goldstein blurred the meaning of negative and positive. They’re apparently unaware of the subtle difference between an attack on a person and a confrontation on issues. It’s not out of bounds to confront another on lack of disclosures or on past voting records; those should be defended and/or explained. It is out of bounds to imply, as in Hillary Clinton’s “3 a.m. phone call” ad, that someone will be unable to handle a future situation.

Barack Obama raises the level of our political dialogue by confronting the issues while politely maintaining that Clinton is well-qualified. I suggest that Geer and Goldstein study the interchanges more carefully and become aware of the difference between the old politics and the new, of the evolution taking place under our noses for those who can see it and are excited by its promise.

Joanne Tatham

Irvine

This article’s headline might just as well be “In praise of political propaganda.” I reread the article and could not spot any words like “true” and “false.” The authors vaguely cite a “great majority of scholarly studies, including our own,” which support their case that negative political advertising actually “engages” voters to pursue more information and encourages greater voter turnout. This sounds more like a mild justification for the kind of “double-speak” George Orwell’s novel, “1984,” frighteningly presented. A more recently used word, “spin,” seems a close relative, muddying truth with misleading distortions or falsehoods. Persuasion becomes the means and the end. The real challenge is to distinguish the true from the false and find where the true and false may intermingle, in advertising or anything else.

Chuck Hackwith

San Clemente