Communication professor Tom Hollihan recently appeared on the KPCC "Take Two" morning radio show to fact-check television ads concerning propositions on the 2012 California ballot.
Hollihan, who reviewed advertisements funded by supporters and opponents of propositions 30, 32 and 37, said ads play a large and often misleading role in the decision-making processes of uninformed voters.
"Unfortunately one of the challenges with government-by-initiative is that people tune into these things fairly late," he said. "They don't read the ballot materials very carefully, so they're unreasonably influenced by ads."
Of the five clips he reviewed, Hollihan found only one, in which supporters of Proposition 30 argue that its money will go straight to the classroom and steer clear of Sacramento, that was mostly factual.
"I think that, for the most part, is accurate," he said. "Most of the money from Prop 30 would go to schools."
An advertisement against Proposition 37, concerning the requirement of a special label for genetically modified food, drew heavy criticism from Hollihan.
"What is most misleading about this ad is that it makes claims, like dog food is going to require labeling but meat would not," he said of an anti-37 ad that claimed the proposition would cost families $400 more per year in grocery expenses.
Hollihan argued that these negative ads are dangerous, as they often have a stronger impact upon the voting population than positive ones. "[It] is why we usually see the direction of support in the polls for propositions move from pretty strong support to increasing negative public opinion of them as we get closer to the election.”
