Is Ameri Embarrassed by Her Own Attack Ad?
Jeff Alworth
I suppose the Oregonian is shocked--shocked!--to learn that Goli Ameri is using their Wu article in her campaign. (Backgrounder: On October 12, the paper ran a story about Wu's attack on his girlfriend in 1976 while in college. It was four days after editors had endorsed Ameri, and just days before ballots hit mailboxes.) Yesterday the Oregonian asked Ameri to knock it off--but only after she had already mailed the article out to 100,000 voters and made it the centerpiece of her campaign.
"We strongly object to the use of our reporting in any political advertisement, particularly in attack ads, which by nature are meant to inflame rather than inform," Sandy Rowe, editor of The Oregonian, said Thursday.
One question for the Oregonian might be what exactly they expected to happen. But whatever the Oregonian's culpability in the affair (discussed here), the Ameri campaign has taken the story and gotten down and dirty. In a television ad currently running, the campaign plucked quotes from the article and ran them to an ominous soundtrack. Here's one account:
The ad shows white text on a black screen, quotes from the Oregonian story about the college-aged Wu trying to force himself on an ex-girlfriend. The final newspaper quote reads Wu used a pillow to muffle her screams.source: OPB
But if you go to Ameri's website, you won't find a single word about the article. You won't find the ad, either. In fact, there's not a whiff of the accusations against Wu there. Curious. I called the Ameri office and asked why nothing was posted yet. A harried volunteer took my call and then called me back a half hour later with the news that the ad would be up "soon." The tech guys were working on it (translation: don't get your hopes up).
Ameri is trailing Wu substantially (by 26 points, according to the most recent survey), so she's playing the cards she was dealt. Given the state of modern politics, it's inconceivable that she wouldn't use this story to her advantage. But there is a right way and a wrong way to target Wu, and this looks like textbook wrong. The charges against Wu are serious--and he has apologized for his behavior. Using the facts alone, Ameri has a strong case.
Instead, her ad focuses on the most salacious of the allegations and distorts the facts. For example, the ad mentions that the girlfriend "called it an attempted rape," but fails to mention that she wouldn't talk to the Oregonian about the article nor that she refused to press charges in the incident. In fact, all of the allegations came second-hand; neither Wu nor the girlfriend agreed to talk with the paper about the story.
So in the end, Ameri has gone for suggestions of a crime worse than the one alleged. Maybe the campaign's failure to post information about this new line of attack is perfectly innocent. Time will tell. At the moment, it looks to me like the campaign is embarrassed to stand behind its own accusations.
Note: I tinkered slightly with the title and changed a word to the correct tense.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Oct 22, '04
One question for the Oregonian might be what exactly they expected to happen.
I believe The Oregonian's objection is not that she's hammering on the issue - that's certainly her right and is not unexpected - but the wholesale reproduction of the newspaper's copyrighted material in the mailing and, in the TV ad, the misrepresentation of The O's reporting. I haven't seen the TV ad, but the mailing is just egregious. The O's logo is prominently featured and the entire article and editor's note is reproduced with a fuzzy b/w picture of Wu. The only indication that this is not some sort of Oregonian mailing is a tiny line on the back that says "Paid for by Ameri for Congress 2004."
1:17 p.m.
Oct 22, '04
Yeah, the printed mailing would appear to be a clear violation of fair use. But the TV ad, which uses excerpts, is definitely allowed in fair use - which allows excerpting for commentary and criticism. Methinks the Ameri campaign is happy to get this free press -- as I've said before in various venues, "the best thing to happen to us would be to get sued. we'll apologize and drop it, but we'll get the story."
1:33 p.m.
Oct 22, '04
The Oregonian's facade of balancing endorsements has come back to haunt them. I wonder who is kicking themselves for creating campaign literature for Ameri?
1:47 p.m.
Oct 22, '04
Which would be worse -- if it was a sexual assault, or just an assault? So far, I'm not convinced it wasn't the latter.
5:49 p.m.
Oct 22, '04
Just now saw a new Wu ad where he challenges Ameri's use of the incident head-on. It doesn't not appear to also have been posted to his website.
Oct 23, '04
Seems as though Ameri is now avoiding public appearances - maybe because of backlash?
She skipped Candidates Gone Wild and the Mult. Co. Young Republicans GOTV kick-off with Lars. Ducking for cover?
4:08 p.m.
Oct 23, '04
I just got the printed ad. OMG. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like it. Maybe back in 92 - Packwood-AuCoin.
Anyway, for some reason I decided to see to whom it was addressed - my roomie (NAV) or moi (card-carrying D of course) and it's addresed to me! She's targeting Democrats.
That just makes her look soooooooo desperate. Targeting NAVs or some of the smaller parties would make more sense than pissing off every Democrat in the district. I haven't talked to one D who thinks that what the Oregonian pulled was a smart thing - how on Earth would it make any sense to use something that Democrats don't agree with against the Democratic candidate (who's winning)?
Very desperate indeed.
Oct 25, '04
When I recieved Goli's slick color mailer attacking Wu, I marked it up with my own comments and sent it back......I started with: "What goes around comes around." I encourage others to return nasty campaign literature with their own comments. Today there was aother nasty Ad from Goli's supporters in Arlington VA. I can't keep up! But I did call the Oregonian and ask the Public Editor if maybe there was a limit to the mudslinging they were willing to endorse. We have learned a lot about Goli Ameri this campaign season, no?
6:25 p.m.
Oct 25, '04
Just saw Wu's counter. Here's a link to the the spot itself.
6:27 p.m.
Oct 25, '04
Let's try this again, shall we? I hate when I forget a quote.
Text
Spot
6:29 p.m.
Oct 25, '04
I copied the link to the wrong spot. Jeezus. I should just give up. LOL.
Here's the the right one.
7:44 a.m.
Oct 26, '04
Thanks for the link, CC. Ameri's tech folk still haven't gotten it up yet. She does have an apology for the Oregonian piece up, but still not a word of criticism of Wu's attack appears on her website. If you lived in Cleveland and just wanted to know about this candidate, you'd have no idea the issue exists at all.
Ameri's apology:
"Recently, the Goli Ameri for Congress campaign distributed a mail piece that reproduced an article in the October 12, 2004 edition of The Oregonian. This mail piece (which was marked as paid for by Ameri for Congress) was paid for by the Ameri for Congress campaign. We did not seek to obtain the permission of The Oregonian to reproduce it. We chose to reproduce the article in its entirety rather than just take excerpts because we believe the story speaks for itself."
Oct 26, '04
Don't think I'd call that an apology. Looks a helluva lot more like a justification to me.
Oct 27, '04
there are a few news articles up on the Ameri site now regarding Wu and the attack... they are dated start Oct 21st and Oct 22nd... am I crazy, or did the Ameri campaign put these articles up within the past day or so and then backdate them?
Oct 27, '04
and I use the terms "news articles" loosely. There is no author attributed, but like most "news" on her website, unless it is directly attributed, it's probably written by campaign staff.
(of course, the Ameri campaign is clearly not concerned with copyright issues, judging by their copying of the Oregonian article, so these could have been written by someone other than a campaign person and just not attributed as such.)
6:02 p.m.
Oct 27, '04
Holy sh*t she's not quitting!!!! I just saw ANOTHER friggin' Ameri ad using the Stanford incident. Taking the "This event shaped the person I've become..." segment from David's ad and saying "The person he's become?!" And talking about how he lied to reporters, failed to disclose this on his app to practice law (disclose WHAT, exactly? He was never charged with a crime!), etc. etc. etc.
She's looking horribly desperate. It's embarrassing.
<h2>Oh and I've seen the ad twice since I started typing this - and I type pretty damned fast.</h2>