netmouse | (no subject)

(no subject)

Does anyone besides me wish there was a rule that television broadcasters had to pull/cancel political advertising that was demonstrated to contain out-and-out lies?

I mean, somewhere in there where you get a broadcasting license, you agree to serve the public. Permitting deceptive advertising just because you've received your pieces of silver is not serving the public.

ETA: this post is in reaction to this ad, which as discussed here posits a lot of things unrelated to Prop 8 as an argument for it, as though it defends people in the state against things other than the state's recognition of the right of gay couples to get and be married. Further discussion here.

Threaded | Flat

Who gets to decide that something is a lie?

There would be ZERO political advertising if that were implemented.

Which might not bad a bad thing...

Perhaps just one of those floating icons in the corner clearly labeling it as fiction?

You're over-engineering this.

How about television is not allowed to anything to do with politics. Let's start there and see how it goes.

(Dammit do NOT get me started!)

:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Hell yea... some things are "judgement" calls where they're playing with statistics but quite often they make statements that are blatantly false and at the very least these need to be removed.

Of course I also believe to run for an elected office you should have to pass an examination on both knowledge and ethics related to the office...then everyone who passes both with 80%+ is granted the exact same advertising and the like options... as in all get 8 commercials...

Cut down on the whole buying elections as it happens now.

Wouldn't help. "Many people believe Barack Obama is a muslim" is true. And then you go into the list of reasons why they believe that, and many of them are true too. You can easily leave people with the impression you want without resorting to lies.

And giving an agency the authority to preview and decide is pretty dangerous, as others have pointed out.

If you let the opposing team take it to court, there are time issues, since ads are mostly run pretty close to the election.

Then there's the pre-emptive challenge of your opponent's ad, which if you're lucky you get blocked for a while (court order) until the case can be decided, and even if they win you've disrupted their schedule and cost them money.

On every TV I've ever owned, there's a little button somewhere that is intended to be used to turn the TV on and off. Exercise your right to USE that little button! Turn the thing OFF and I guarantee you won't be irritated by the ads any more. That's what *I* do! And my dogs LOVE me for it! ;-)

(It works for crappy programming too!) ;-D

And think of the electricity you'll save if you follow the suggestion on my blog and put all the "entertainment" appliances on a powerstrip and just turn the whole battery of stuff off - it all has that "instant-on" circuitry that just GOBBLES electricity even when you're not using it!

I sometimes wonder how much happier I'd be if I ignored politics and especially economics...

(deleted comment) (Show 4 comments)

Not any more. Welcome to the Republican age of de-regulation. (Started back in the Reagan years, I believe)

We had a similar problem here - Stephen Harper kept talking about how Stephane Dion was going to raise taxes with his "Green Shift", but always omitted the bit about offsetting reductions in personal income tax to compensate. So that would be a lie by omission, which is almost as bad.

Threaded | Flat