Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:13:49 EDT
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Banning Political Ads
              4 Apr 1992 07:31:28 -0800 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>>Print ads in newspapers and magazines have unlimited potential for
>>detailed explanations of a candidate's position(s), or a detailed
>>critique of his opponent's.
>
>"Have unlimited potential" is not the same as "will be used that way".
>
And I never meant to imply that they were or would be.  I'm saying that
30 second TV spots have no potential for detailed analysis of anything.

>In that TV is no different from other media; the substance comes
>from HOW its used, not whether or not it is used.
>
EXACTLY!  And by eliminating the short spots, we change how TV is used.

>>Since TV spots are the greatest expense for a campaign, disallowing these
>>things potentially allows more candidates to enter a race, giving voters
>>a broader field from which to choose.
>
>That's not obvious.  Name recognition is worth quite a bit.  TV is the
>cheapest way for an unknown to get it.  Thus, "the cost" of becoming
>known GOES UP if TV use is restricted.
>
That TV is the cheapest way to get name recognition is very debatable.
(TV ads cost *alot* of money.)  I think (and I believe I've previously
stated) that all candidates should get some free airtime, but it should
be in blocks larger than 60 seconds.

>>Done under the direction of a good Madison Ave. advertising firm with
>>a multi-million dollar TV ad campaign.  Do you really want political
>>campaigns to be run that way?
>
>Welcome to the 80s.  (I suspect that the cross over between commercial
>and political advertising is actually much older than that, but can't
>point to solid evidence.)  They are and restricting TV access won't
>change that.
>
None of which answers the question do you personally want campaigns
run that way?  If not, how do we improve the situation?  I think removing
unlimited use of short TV ads will help, but is by no means a cure-all.

>>Do short, sound-bite, TV and radio ads demonstrate the desired
>>"correctnes"?
>
>They can, it all depends on how they're used.  Why are you so

Hmmm... lemme rephrase the question.  Are short, sound-bite, TV and
radio ads *being used* to generate the desired correctness in
political campaigns?  I don't see it, except when a candidate runs
spots to correct allegations made in his competitor's spots.
Looks to me like a waste of time and money, as well as being counter-
productive to an equitably functioning republic.

>unwilling to judge candidates on their campaigns?  (Or, are we seeing

I'd prefer if all voters judged a candidate on his stance on the issues
and proposed solutions to pressing problems.

If by "campaigns" you mean how well the candidate trashes his opponent,
fends off similar attacks by his opponent, how well his handlers "spin"
the media, and what kind of catch-phrase he concocts to plug into the
15 second spots that pollute my TV screen in November, then yes, I am
unwilling to judge candidates on their campaigns.  I think all intel-
ligent voters are.
    todddddddd
>
>-andy

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "No offense.  I just fear
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   the unfamiliar."
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    - MARGE SIMPSON
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU