Political Advertisements - When Do We Draw The Line?
Good Evening Everyone;
As was discussed in class today, political television advertisements are significant tools when it comes to getting your message out there during an election.
With the Midterms in full swing within the United States, our television screens are being bombarded with these advertisements, some disturbing, some down right stupid.
Yesterday, well watching TV I saw one add that incorporated a picture of Osama Bin Laden bouncing back and forth across the screen. It was the Republicans attempt to use fear to scare voters away from the Democrats. They insisted the Democrats track record fighting terrorism was not as strong as the Republican party, and voting for them would spell ‘trouble’.
That is just one example of some of the tactics election advertisements use. Whether a Democratic or Republican ad, these ads have brought everything up from candidates who went bankrupt, played on the physical features of others, race, tried to make women look inferior, and the list goes on and on.
My question to all of you is when do these ads go too far? Is there a line that should never be crossed, or in today's world is everything fair game? Should there be some sort of partial ethics board that views these ads before they go over the airways and/or on television? Or, do voters deserve to know everything about an individual or group running for office?
Any thoughts?
Thank you, and have an excellent day!
As was discussed in class today, political television advertisements are significant tools when it comes to getting your message out there during an election.
With the Midterms in full swing within the United States, our television screens are being bombarded with these advertisements, some disturbing, some down right stupid.
Yesterday, well watching TV I saw one add that incorporated a picture of Osama Bin Laden bouncing back and forth across the screen. It was the Republicans attempt to use fear to scare voters away from the Democrats. They insisted the Democrats track record fighting terrorism was not as strong as the Republican party, and voting for them would spell ‘trouble’.
That is just one example of some of the tactics election advertisements use. Whether a Democratic or Republican ad, these ads have brought everything up from candidates who went bankrupt, played on the physical features of others, race, tried to make women look inferior, and the list goes on and on.
My question to all of you is when do these ads go too far? Is there a line that should never be crossed, or in today's world is everything fair game? Should there be some sort of partial ethics board that views these ads before they go over the airways and/or on television? Or, do voters deserve to know everything about an individual or group running for office?
Any thoughts?
Thank you, and have an excellent day!
posted by King's Man at 4:31 PM
4 Comments:
I personally don't believe that television advertising should be allowed for the purpose of promoting political elections beyond a simple message that lets less knowledgable viewers know that the elections are around the corner.
Advertisers state that advertisements are messages which provide the public with information on things that they need. But if we look at this idea more closely, it is obvious that if we need something we will go in search of it, without advertisers letting us know that we "need" it. In the context of political advertisements, these are not the right place to discover any relevant information on a political party. A 30 second clip full of highly constructed graphic images is not an objective and reliable source of information. If citizens are relying on these commercials as their source for deiciding which party to vote for, they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
While I definitely agree that TV shouldn't be the only place people find their information about political figures or parties, it certainly is one place that they do so. Based on that, I would have to say that I do think it is possible to go too far. To me, the measure of this should be in considering the purpose of the advertising. That purpose should be to inform, and to promote. If the method used provides no real credibility to the party presenting it but simple demeans other individuals, groups or parties then I think it has missed the boat.
As far as material content of advertising, I do think there should be some review. I think advertising needs to follow laws, respect rights, and present itself with a reasonable degree of morality and respect. While I am aware this is a somewhat loose explanation, I think that it needs to be to allow for people to express themselves. Just not at the expense of others.
I think that the advertising tactics used for candidates in the United States are disgraceful. Their aggressive, mudslinging approach has been proven not to work and falls out of popular public opinion with a great majority of the population.
I watched a short news clip the other day on how some politicians in the U.S. are manipulating new adverstising approaches in order to attract voters. The company that makes these new advertisements for politicians who are sick of the old style of ads feature cartoons and action figures accompanied by a comical or satirical script. One ad they showed that had been aired showed the opponents of a candidate depicted as cartoon-characters who were sticking their own heads up their rear ends showing that they were liars and useless. I know that may sound like an offensive ad but this is the new approach that these politicans are taking into order to foster support in their communities.
Personally I think that both the mudslinging and new comedy-style type of campaigning are desperate and shouldn't be ones that politicians actually want to associate their name with. In order for Canada to protect itself from following in the American footsteps, we should have a board with very strict guidelines that has to pass each political ad before it is broadcasted.
I believe that there should be some sort of partial ethic board that regulates these political advertisements because parties exaggerate the truth to make themselves look better than the opposition. I think that these advertisements are misleading and prejudice. Just like you said before, some attack ads point fun at irrelevant things such as gender or race. This just reinforces ignorant stereotypes that don’t need to be repeated, especially from our representatives. I just feel that these ads are misleading to an extent because some ads have relevance when it comes to scandals and corruption, such as Bush’s war on Iraq. How Bush misled his citizens was shameful and shouldn’t have been tolerated.
Bottom line, I think it’s okay to have attack ads when they are COMPLETELY HONEST. They must have a responsibility to not mislead the country. Even if there is facts against a candidate, I believe that the ad shouldn’t be spinned in a way where they end up making that fact false. They might take the fact out of context or make it look worse than it really is. Therefore, I think a partial ethics board would play a key role in passing ads or turning them down or making the party revise their ads because it would ensure that the REAL facts are being shown to the general public.
Post a Comment
<< Home