There have been two attack ads that have garnered backlash during the Louisiana gubernatorial run-off election, one from Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) and one from State Rep. John Bel Edwards (D-Amite).
The major difference between them, however, is how they have been scrutinized and portrayed by the media.
Vitter’s ad involved the word “thug,” which ticked off the NAACP because apparently portraying criminals as “thugs” is downright offensive.
These were a few of the media’s headlines on the attack ad:
Vitter is mostly the subject for both of the attack ads’ headlines.
This is the kind of portrayal which excludes the viciousness of Edwards’ attack ad on Vitter and instead, puts the focus on Vitter and his track record.
While in Vitter’s attack ad headlines, Vitter’s viciousness is pointed out through the use of the word “thug.”
In Vitter’s attack ad, he was mostly the subject of the headlines and is accused of fear mongering. But, in the headlines discussing Edwards’ attack ad, there is never a mention of fear mongering or even any headlines about what the LAGOP had to say about the ad.
But, which ad is truly more vicious? The overwhelming response so far has been Edwards’ ad, and yet it is being wildly portrayed by the media as just another attack ad.