News-Record.com

Is anything in the ad untruthful? Did Hagen attend that function or not?
The ad does NOT say that Hagen is Godless, or anything else

You're absolutely right. It doesn't say that. But it does give the impression that Hagan said, "There is no God."

Senator Dole is partisan and only represents those with her own point of view. She's saying she wouldn't listen to those with different beliefs. Just the same old Washingtonian. Vote for change. Vote for Hagan.

I've been a Dole supporter for a long time and I believe Kay Hagan would be a disaster if elected.

However, even I can't defend this ad - it's shamefully deceptive and outright offensive. The ad clearly makes it appear as though Hagan is saying, "There is no God."

I think this ad may blow up in Dole's face.

So I see this morning (at least in the online edition) the N&R has chosen to print a lie in it's headline with the phrase "Sen. Elizabeth Dole defends her TV ad that portrays state Sen. Kay Hagan as “Godless.”" when you know it's not true.
Shame on the N&R for telling lies in it's partisan support of yet another Democrat.
Dole's ad does NOT portray Hagan as Godless, it points out Hagan's attendance at a function given by other people who claim to be Godless.
The N&R will go to any lengths to support Democrats.

I am still trying to figure out the NR websitie that implied Palin does porn movies. Wonder why no out cry on that? Hagan has done wonderful job in Raleigh, if you like everything screwed up!! Hagan, attented this function to get money! If she was not godleesss she would have surived on the money rolling in from labor unions and Chuck Shuman, on tv bragging about how much money he has raise for Hagan.

You have to remember, that the worst "Christians" are Devils.
Priests molesting kids... all in the name of God.
Behold I come to you as an angel of light.
I'd keep my eye on "Fibber Kay".

I'm not sure I follow you, Jaycee. What's not true?

Where in Dole's commercial does she call Hagan "Godless?"
If you get the impression that Hagan's Godless, then that's your interpretation. I certainly didn't. Your misleading headline mimics Hagan's position by trying to sway the public's opinion by stating an opinion as a fact.
If you want to do that, stick to the editorial page and don't portray that headline as "news." It's editorial opinion, not fact.

You're right, Jaycee. It is a matter of interpretation.
But I'd argue that the unidentified voice at the end of the ad saying, "There is no God" certainly could be mistaken for Hagan's voice and seems strategically placed to create that impression.

But I'd argue that the unidentified voice at the end of the ad saying, "There is no God" certainly could be mistaken for Hagan's voice and seems strategically placed to create that impression.

*************
I don't see any other way it could be interpreted.

Again, I don't like Hagan's politics and I'm a Dole backer. But clearly, this ad is an attempt to portray Hagan as something she's not - namely, an atheist.

Believe me, I agree about the liberal media bias. It definitely exists and I've called the N&R out on it before. But in this case, they are just calling a spade a spade - the Dole ad crossed the line.

Is there anything in the ad that is untrue?
Or are the facts just put in such a way as to infer a certain point of view? Nothing wrong with that, as I see it. The N&R does it every day.
Where was your outrage, Allen, when Lorraine Ahearn's series of articles on Chief Wray inferred that he was a racist when no facts exist to support that impression? The manner in which Ahearn wrote her article left many with the "impression" that Chief Wray was a racist.
I'd invite you to diss LorraineAhearn for that on here the same way you've dissed Senator Dole.

Jaycee:
You're straying off topic. This comment string is not about David Wray.
The Dole ad is misleading by design. With all due respect, you know it and she knows it.
She's a better candidate and a better person than that.
I suspect you are, too.

Jaycee:
You're straying off topic. This comment string is not about David Wray.
The Dole ad is misleading by design. With all due respect, you know it and she knows it.
She's a better candidate and a better person than that.
I suspect you are, too.

Straying? Hardly.
The point is what a viewer/reader perceives versus reality. Many look at Dole's ad and see something that isn't there. Was it intentional? Maybe.
Many read Ahearn's articles and saw something that wasn't there. Was it intentional? Maybe.
I see it as apples-to-apples and an excellent example of you guys sneering at someone else who did the same thing you did.
Was Ahearn careful enough to use only facts and quotes from others? Yes, she was. Was dole careful enough to use facts and quotes from others? Yes, she was.

So, the voice at the end of the ad is not misleading, as you see it?

The voice stands on it's own. It is not identified, and I see no evidence that it belongs to Hagan. If you perceive it as such, well, that's just your perception.
I see the ad as exposing Hagan's ties with a group of donors.
I also note that Hagan refuses to address the issue and explain the connection to the atheist group, but instead attacks the source of the truth. How Clintonesque.

Hagan, and the N&R, are using Clintonesque spin to avoid admitting that the ad, albeit hard-hitting, is factually true. She traveled out of state to attend a fundraiser hosted by a person who heads up a PAC that wants to take "In God We Trust" off our currency, and drop the "Under God" line from the Pledge of Allegiance. Ellen Johnson, the person whose audio clip at the end of the ad states "there is no God", is shown on video talking about how there was no Jesus, no God. The audio clip at the end of the ad is obviously Ellen Johnson's voice, but you can't fault the Dole campaign if people are dumb enough to think it was Kay Hagan's voice.

What if Liddy Dole went to a fundraiser hosted by someone with the White Citizens Council or the John Birch Society, and the Democrats paid for an ad showing a grainy video clip of Dole at David Duke's house? Would the N&R cry "foul"? No, you wouldn't - you would bash Dole over the head with the fact that she associates with people who don't share North Carolina voters' views (and the N&R would be correct in doing this).

Allen, you know this, but you are rushing to Hagan's defense here and will not acknowledge the fact that this group does not share the people of this state's views on faith. If Hagan wants to represent this state in the US Senate, she better come clean on why she took time out of a busy campaign schedule to fly up to Boston to rub elbows with an atheist group and collect a check from their founder. That is the real issue here, not the red herring her campaign has cooked up with this joke of a lawsuit. The whining and crying "foul" over this ad is pathetic. I wonder if Hagan's pastor asked her after her press conference, why in the world would she have anything to do with people who are so against religion. Politics ain't beanbag, as they say, and it seems like Hagan can't take the heat.

I know that Hagan is your horse in this race, Allen, but this is too much. Your paper has been fawning over Hagan for years (Rosemary Roberts column last Friday was way over the top); do you know who started the mud slinging in this race? It wasn't Liddy Dole, that's for sure. I don't recall the N&R criticizing Hagan over her extensive negative ads from the onset of this race.

Whether or not this ad works in Dole's favor remains to be seen. The reason political candidates use negative adverstising is simple: it works. Why do you think Kay Hagan has made this race competetive? 18 million doallars worth of negative ads, that's why. This has been the nastiest campaign I have ever witnessed.

This ad crosses no line: it is factually correct, and a candidate's associations are fair game in politics--a matter on whose importance the voters can, if they wish, decide.

As for the assertion that "of course" the female voiceover is intended to be interpreted as Hagan's voice, this strikes me as a point one would expect from fundamentalists (Southern Baptists, for example) accustomed to literal, monological modes of interpretation. I assume the operative premises are (1) that all discourse proceeds from a single, unified subject and (2) that all women sound alike. For those of us a more discriminating hermeneutical bent, this seems rather hopelessly simple-minded. Has no one read Derrida? Is Stanley Fish a person of whom no one has heard?

The rhetoric of the ad is equally simple minded. Although, like most people, I find atheists incredibly tiresome (ranking alongside Southern Baptists in this respect), it is almost inconcievable to me that anyone would base her vote on an association of this sort. If an atheist--even a godless one--were to raise money for me, I should certainly accept it.

No, all women don't sound alike, Brian. But I know Kay Hagan. It could be mistaken for her.
And it appears placed so as to create that kind of confusion.
As for how this issue might affect anyone's vote, we do live in the Bible Belt. Sample other comments in this thread, as well on other blogs.

My prediction, with my admittedly limited knowledge of politics is:
This ad and Hagan's confused reaction (listen to the interview) to it will help push Dole to victory..
We'll see Tuesday.
Here's a chilling long version of the ad on YouTube.

So you're blaming Dole because we live amongst decent, God-loving Christians? Like I said, if people care about Hagan's associations with a godless atheist, they're free to do so as far as I'm concerned. Seems silly to me, but to each his own.

As for your crude model of textual intentionality, I can only reiterate that it fails to take into account the latest and most sophisticated developments in the field.

I agree with Brian 4x3. If the local chapter of BisexuaL Knaves Thieves and Scoundrels Union of America wants to give one money, so be it. One might pause for a brief second to wonder why, but not for too long.

Tony:
Apparently, the ad didn't help Dole.