NO MORE NEGATIVE POLITICAL ADS PUBLISHED IN THE ADVANCE

By G. Romero Wendorf

As I wade through Fakebook (Facebook) during the local election season, looking at all of the things most people post – look at what I ate for breakfast, or look at my new hairdo, or look at how cute I was when I was cheerleader 30 years ago, or look at what my dog just barfed up on the rug – I run across some of the most outrageous stuff pertaining to politics. Of course, a lot of the posts are written by illiterates who can’t spell or construct a simple sentence. But unfortunately, they can still vote. And apparently, unless their pet poodle is helping them, they can log on to Fakebook. Can we please make it a law that an IQ test is required of voters? Maybe at least shoot for a 70? If not an IQ test, maybe a requirement that a voter’s level of knowledge is at least commiserate with a fifth-grade education? In some of this year’s local elections, the mud slinging has reached a fevered pitch. In McAllen, some faceless person even paid for a direct mail piece attacking Richard Cortez in his bid to become the new Precinct 1 city commissioner. Forget the fact that the guy just lost his wife of 47 years, slam him into the ground. He’s a public figure. Grind him into the dust. Whether or not you’re a fan of Cortez, why attack him from the shadows? Attach your name to the flyer if you’re going to attack him. But some anonymous coward put together a flyer against him, paid for the postage, and stuck it in the mail. State election law mandates that political ads must contain one of the following: the person who paid for the ad; the political committee authorizing the ad; or the candidate or specific-purpose committee supporting the candidate if the political ad is authorized by the candidate. Since the attack-mail brochure against Cortez contained none of those stipulations, one could argue that someone broke the election law. But good luck finding them. They’re in the shadows, and there they will remain, mired in the political mud. In the case of The Advance, I’ve let two political ads get published recently with that information not included at the bottom of the ad – who paid for it — but it was an honest mistake on my part, and I’ll admit to it. It wasn’t meant to hide anything, since it was obvious to anyone that the slates mentioned in the ad were the ones placing them. A previous ad we ran regarding the San Juan race was negative in content, but the name of the person who paid for the ad was clearly printed at the bottom of it. He wasn’t hiding in the shadows, and he was willing to stand up and take the heat for running it. Like it or not. On Fakebook this season, there are several pages devoted entirely to running down several slates in a local election. Some even use the word “corrupt.” Which is libelous if you want to get right down to it. You can say a lot about public figures, but accusing them of being “corrupt” without the hard proof to back it up is a slippery slope. And some real class act has even gone after one of the candidate’s offspring, as if the sins of the son must rest with the father. And it’s obvious, some highcaliber, high-class people are following the mud-slinging. Their level of profanity is high, and some of them don’t even know how to spell the profane words. Go figure. That’s a new one. I thought everyone knew how to spell $#&$. Four letters. Whether it’s the one that starts with F or S. How hard is that? It would also be nice if people posting political comments, the same people who vote, knew the difference between you’re and your, and it’s and its, and which words are capitalized and which are not, and maybe what the difference might be between a comma and a period. Maybe even having a passing acquaintance with what a possessive apostrophe is all about. Now, I’ll admit to the use of profanity myself. But I have to be mad in a very acute sense. I don’t use it as a normal part of my $#@*&%$ dialogue. If you look at the national studies surrounding it – negative political advertising – the results are all over the board, according to political scientists. Voters don’t like it. Voters do like it. It doesn’t work. It does work. Who can keep up? Meanwhile, I ask the question: how is it that Fakebook (Facebook) is allowed to get away with the violation of election laws, while newspapers are not? And why is it that so many of the people who put together these Fakebook pages related to local politics hide in the shadows? If you have something to say about someone, man up, or woman up, and attach your name to it. Speak your mind, but don’t hide from your identity. Here at The Advance, I have just implemented a new policy: no more negative political advertising. If I could rewind time a month or so, I would have implemented the policy back then. Because I realize, politics don’t have to be negative. And to be honest, negative political advertising does harm to a town, a city, a county, not to mention the candidates, supporters, family and friends associated with the race. Sure, it makes for great reading – the negative political ads – great viewing, but it busts up friendships and families even, in some cases, and it just isn’t worth the price. In the case of Pharr, each slate, Pharr First and Pharr Forward, feel that the other has unfairly maligned them with regard to some stated facts. This week, I told each side, no more negative ads. Stick to the positive. But just to clear the air, what I’m going to do next week is publish an editorial, in which I give them equal space to say what they feel has been said about them unfairly by the other side. I’m also going to give the city manager some space to respond since his work performance was often mentioned in some of the ads. After that, it’s time to move on. As always, this newspaper remains neutral in any and all elections. Personally, I’ve never felt it was the job of a newspaper to support any one candidate or slate. What makes me smarter than the average guy, the average voter? Nothing. Someone said the other day, why don’t you (The Advance) endorse one of the slates? The New York Times does it. Yeah, I said, but how many times has The New York Times been right in its endorsements? Didn’t have much to say after that. I hope, too, that all the mudslinging on social media stops in these local elections. Or if it doesn’t, the cowards posting the pages should at least come out of the shadows and identify themselves. If they’re going to malign someone’s reputation, have the decency and courage to show us their face