Why Aren't Political Ads Pre-Vetted Like Pharma Ads? « Columbus Underground Messageboard

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion

Why Aren't Political Ads Pre-Vetted Like Pharma Ads?

[33 posts] [14 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 1 year ago by joev
Latest reply from SamuraiJack

Tags:

Ads
politics

12 Next »

joev
Merion Village
Login to Send PM

I'm pretty sure there's not a single person out there who isn't sick of the incessant political ads. Especially the ones that are intentionally misleading, and sometimes even outright false. Both sides are running these really disgusting ads. More than disgusting, some people use these ads as information to decide whom to vote for - that's dangerous for democracy.

So why can't political ads be verified for factuality before they're allowed to air? Ads for prescription drugs are required to disclose all types of information (side effects) and the FDA has even been clamping down on false and misleading health claims for consumer products (Cheerios can no longer say it helps to reduce cholesterol - but that it may have an impact on cholesterol, POM Wonderful can't make health claims about antioxidants preventing cancer, etc.)

Voting based on factual information is at least as important as understanding how Cheerios affect cholesterol - why couldn't a neutral agency vet all political ads to ensure they aren't false or misleading?

Posted 1 year ago #
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM

Because the First Amendment protects politically speech in a way that is different from commercial speech. While the ads are obnoxious, such proposed solutions are profoundly and deeply worse.

If you look at it historically, the content of these ads are far more factual and less personal than what the Founding Fathers engaged in. No duels over slander in the last century!

A.

Posted 1 year ago #
joev
Merion Village
Login to Send PM

Worse for the politicians, maybe - but I don't think anything would be worse for democracy.

Going back to one blatant example, a Democrat running for reelection to Congress in Florida has branded his opponent Taliban Dan - and used a snippet of his speech in an completely out of context:

[url=http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-29-2010/indecision-2010---taliban-dan---boo-gate][/url]

How could this be considered a good outcome?

Posted 1 year ago #
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM

On a related point, who monitors the monitors? That "neutral" agency wouldn't stay neutral for very long, if it ever even began as such.

Pretty soon, the only factual statements allowed to air would be ones on the lines of "I'm not a witch," and even that one might be censored for lack of factual corroboration and inability to prove a negative.

Posted 1 year ago #
Bristol Bar

Login to Send PM

Maybe it could be monitored the same way the CBO is? It remains non partisan and both Dem's and Repub's go with their numbers.

Posted 1 year ago #
joev
Merion Village
Login to Send PM

I think the League of Women Voters has done an extremely great job of providing non-biased, fact-based election information - that seems like a good monitoring candidate.

Posted 1 year ago #
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM

No. Andrew Hall is right on this. There is no way to safely open the can of worms containing censorship of political speech.

Strickland is a lefty pinko commie who will denude the state of what industry it has left and leave us all dependent on government handouts.

Kasich is a right-wing plutocratic fascist intent on selling us all to Wall Street (and then bailing out Wall Street again when it turns out that he sold them a lousy asset when he sold us to them).

Are any of these true? Probably not. But they all are, and should remain, fair game for political speech because the alternative would be a dramatic chilling of the exchange of ideas as people retrenched their political thoughts in order to be sure they were escaping the gaze of the omnipresent censors.

Posted 1 year ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Andrew Hall wrote >>
Because the First Amendment protects politically speech in a way that is different from commercial speech. While the ads are obnoxious, such proposed solutions are profoundly and deeply worse.
If you look at it historically, the content of these ads are far more factual and less personal than what the Founding Fathers engaged in. No duels over slander in the last century!
A.

Done in 1.

On the other hand, politics would be a lot more interesting to watch if dueling was involved.

Posted 1 year ago #
joev
Merion Village
Login to Send PM

gramarye wrote >>
No. Andrew Hall is right on this. There is no way to safely open the can of worms containing censorship of political speech.
Strickland is a lefty pinko commie who will denude the state of what industry it has left and leave us all dependent on government handouts.
Kasich is a right-wing plutocratic fascist intent on selling us all to Wall Street (and then bailing out Wall Street again when it turns out that he sold them a lousy asset when he sold us to them).
Are any of these true? Probably not. But they all are, and should remain, fair game for political speech because the alternative would be a dramatic chilling of the exchange of ideas as people retrenched their political thoughts in order to be sure they were escaping the gaze of the omnipresent censors.

I completely disagree. The current system sets up the biggest liar for victory. And it gets intelligent people disenchanted with the whole political system. It also keeps decent people from wanting to enter politics.

Posted 1 year ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

joev wrote >>
It also keeps decent people from wanting to enter politics.

Try this:

Well, we all know the only decent people are goldwater republicans. That's a fact and the newly created political censorship board will enforce that.

Posted 1 year ago #
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM

joev wrote >>

gramarye wrote >>
No. Andrew Hall is right on this. There is no way to safely open the can of worms containing censorship of political speech.
Strickland is a lefty pinko commie who will denude the state of what industry it has left and leave us all dependent on government handouts.
Kasich is a right-wing plutocratic fascist intent on selling us all to Wall Street (and then bailing out Wall Street again when it turns out that he sold them a lousy asset when he sold us to them).
Are any of these true? Probably not. But they all are, and should remain, fair game for political speech because the alternative would be a dramatic chilling of the exchange of ideas as people retrenched their political thoughts in order to be sure they were escaping the gaze of the omnipresent censors.

I completely disagree. The current system sets up the biggest liar for victory. And it gets intelligent people disenchanted with the whole political system. It also keeps decent people from wanting to enter politics.

It was far, far worse in the Dawn of the Republic and there were no more or no less "decent" people involved in politics then. (Actually, there were less in sheer numbers, but we will go by percentage of those not legally barred.)

If the biggest liar wins, it is the responsibility of the electorate.

A.

Posted 1 year ago #
joev
Merion Village
Login to Send PM

So you're OK with politicians who will affect the direction of the country being allowed to lie in ads, but not Cheerios?

Posted 1 year ago #
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM

Both of the examples cited by Gram are opinions (as is coining "Taliban Dan.)In effect, what is proposed is calling for a elimination of the expression of opinion. That is far worse than anything else.

A.

Posted 1 year ago #
sean2outerspace
Clintonville
Login to Send PM

I don't think that anyone is saying they are OK with ads and candidates that are blatantly misleading, just that regulating them is a slippery slope and could be far more harmful to the democracy than the mud slinging that goes on now.

Posted 1 year ago #
joev
Merion Village
Login to Send PM

The Taliban Dan ad that centered on a portion of the candidates speech - something like "The Bible says women should obey their husbands." In the speech (but of course not in the ad,) directly after that statement, the candidate went on to say something like, "But I don't think that's applicable in today's world - marriage is an equal partnership." Grayson used the first part of the speech to tacitly state that "Taliban Dan" wants to go back to a Biblical system of wifely obedience. How is that an opinion and not a blatant lie?

Posted 1 year ago #
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM

joev wrote >>
So you're OK with politicians who will affect the direction of the country being allowed to lie in ads, but not Cheerios?

The cure is worse than the disease.

And the example of a "lie" you cited earlier is a *subjective* evaluation.

A.

Posted 1 year ago #
joev
Merion Village
Login to Send PM

Andrew Hall wrote >>

joev wrote >>
So you're OK with politicians who will affect the direction of the country being allowed to lie in ads, but not Cheerios?

The cure is worse than the disease.
And the example of a "lie" you cited earlier is a *subjective* evaluation.
A.

It completely depends on how the cure is administered.

Posted 1 year ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

joev wrote >>

Andrew Hall wrote >>

joev wrote >>
So you're OK with politicians who will affect the direction of the country being allowed to lie in ads, but not Cheerios?

The cure is worse than the disease.
And the example of a "lie" you cited earlier is a *subjective* evaluation.
A.

It completely depends on how the cure is administered.

Read as "dictatorships are great when the dictator is benevolent".

Posted 1 year ago #
Walker
The KLD / Downtown
Login to Send PM

joev wrote >>
I'm pretty sure there's not a single person out there who isn't sick of the incessant political ads.

(Raises Hand!)

There's relatively few on Hulu. So I'd say I'm not sick of them.

Posted 1 year ago #
joev
Merion Village
Login to Send PM

I actually saw a bunch of them on Hulu - and Pandora. Someone has a good media buyer.

Posted 1 year ago #