Is the add coming from the candidate or an outside group? If it's outside toss it. If it's the candidTe I like your plan, but I doubt he will go for it. I actaually don't think it's negative. Higher prop taxes generally mean better schools and services and I am ok with that. I don't know GA law but where I live the citizens have to approve any tax hike on property so it would really be a moot point other than appealing to idiots.

Amercans hate negative advertising, or so we say. Problem is, it works, so it gets used. I think if you are questioning it, don't run it

Posted by chapelhillne on 4/21/2016 5:21:00 PM (view original):
Hey Guys - This is totally off topic, but I need to make a very quick decision, and I need some impartial opinions like right away.

I publish a magazine.

We do not allow negative advertising by political candidates.

One candidate wants to put this statement in their ad. They are running against an incumbent for County Commission Chairman:
"According to the Georgia Department of Revenue Tax Digest, property taxes in Douglas County have increased by over 60% since 2005."

They do not mention the incumbent by name. But he took office at the end of 2004 (I think)

Is this a negative ad? I have to decide right away whether to reject it or allow it. We go to press soon. Please help :)

i think more context is necessary to make a decision. simply based on that, it sounds fine to me. if you are saying, taxes went up, i think this should not have happened, that is basically taking a position - its part of a political platform. i dont think that is inherently negative, even if its presented as something the campaign wants to change. if unemployment went up 5%, couldn't the guy say, with unemployment rising 5% since 2010, jobs will be my #1 priority? i think if its in the spirit of defining his campaign, its fine.

Posted by cburton23 on 4/21/2016 8:31:00 PM (view original):
Is the add coming from the candidate or an outside group? If it's outside toss it. If it's the candidTe I like your plan, but I doubt he will go for it. I actaually don't think it's negative. Higher prop taxes generally mean better schools and services and I am ok with that. I don't know GA law but where I live the citizens have to approve any tax hike on property so it would really be a moot point other than appealing to idiots.

Amercans hate negative advertising, or so we say. Problem is, it works, so it gets used. I think if you are questioning it, don't run it

Yes - it came with the candidate. We ended up going with something similar to what I proposed, so I think that was the right decision. I don't like negative advertising, which is why we have that policy. Plus, if you allow a negative ad to run, then about half of the readership gets an unpleasant feeling, and I don't want that subconsciously associated with the magazine.

I really appreciate all of your help!

I know the decision has been made, but FWIW that doesn't sound anything close to a negative advertisement. It would be negative it was more like "John Doe caused taxes to raize XX% though poor leadership", or something like that. You get the picture. The original quote was stating a pure fact and was not a direct attack against any individual. Regardless, glad you were able to come to a decision you feel comfortable with.

First of all, I have to give you applause for the honorable position you have taken and your dedication to upholding it. Not all journalists have those kind of standards (yeah, I know, call me Captain Obvious).

With regard to a continuum of negative - positive in this context, I think there is a great middle that is simply "true." Too far to either end becomes troublesome, but the great middle ground is simply there, like it or not. In the case you cite, it sounds like the sentence you point out is well within the safe middle ground. It is the rest of the ad that gives the statement context that could potentially warrant critical scrutiny.

By the way, you have now established your credentials as far as fairness and determination to follow your rule. You are in the driver's seat. If you say "No" in the future, then "No" it is. Well done.

Thank you!

If a candidate had an affair and it was indeed factual and verifiable, does that mean its not a negative add??? Obviously it would be, so something being a fact and open to verification doesn't mean that it is not 'negative' in this connotation. Plus, I feel like this is obvious, but not only corroborating those numbers but correctly assessing their cause can be extremely difficult...so playing fast and loss with them could still constitute a 'negative' attack.

As someone with bachelor's degree in political science (tell your kids to major in poli sci; also encourage them to freebase heroin. The two are equally productive and marketable traits), I'd say it's a fine ad. Nothing inflammatory; nothing that could potentially alienate your readers. Plus, its revenue, baby. Take the money.