Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 07:20:13 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Banning Political Ads

> > MacRae didn't read the second to last sentence that he quoted.  The
> > news coverage came about because of the pot legalizers attempt to buy
> > an ad.  If that was illegal, as MacRae would like, how much coverage
> > would they have gotten for having their ad refused?  Would they have
> > even tried to place an ad?  MacRae loses that point.
>
>Nope, you still lose.  The ads the pro-pot people are trying to run
>are not political ads, they are apolitical, informative ads.

Giggle.  They think that they're running a legalization campaign.
They're using "here's the truth about hemp" form, just as Clinton runs
"here's the truth about Brown/Bush" ads.

>My proposal never suggested that *all* tv ads be banned.  Again, I
>wonder if you *really* understand my proposal at all.

I assumed that the proposal was at least sensible enough to broadly
define political ads, because otherwise the loopholes are larger than
the proposal.  That was a mistake on my part.

>sentence?  You know the one, where you state that non-news programs
>could be used as forums (much as the League of Women's Voters does
>today.)

You're going to let "independent" groups run political ads?  What a
deal.  At this point, I withdraw all objections because the proposal
doesn't affect access at all.

>Purely a subjective opinion on your part.  I can show article after
>article in just about every news magazine around, as well as countless
>letters to editors, and interviews with candidates and their managers,
>*all* agreeing that the cost of tv ads is the single most limiting
>factor in today's campaigns.  You are the first person I have run
>across who doesn't seem to mind the money that is wasted on tv ads.

If they really think that there are cheaper alternatives, why aren't
they using them?  No one is forcing them to buy TV; they act as if it
is more cost effective than the alternatives so ....

>> I've never written that paid political broadcasts were necessary.
>> I've only written that significant personal contact is impossible for
>> elections with large voter populations, in response to MacRae's claim
>> that abolishing TV would cause or allow significant contact between
>> candidates and voters.
>
>Banning paid tv ads would *improve* such contact,

How?  It can't give the candidates more time and it won't reduce the
size of the electorate.  Those are the factors that make significant
voter-candidate personal contact impossible.

>I never claimed it would create perfection, and only an idealogue would
>expect otherwise.

I'm not expecting perfection; I'm pointing out that the mechanism has
nothing to do with the supposed goal.  How much extra time for
personal contact with voters will candidates have if they don't go on
TV?  Is it enough to make a significant difference?

> > How does abolishing paid TV make it cheaper for candidates to get name
> > recognition, let alone to get their views out?  (If there were
> > cheapter alternatives, wouldn't they be using them?)  Banning TV
> > doesn't create other options.
>
>Once again, you are trying to disprove that which already exists.
>If, as you suggest, it is impossible for candidates to get their
>name recognized and their views known without paid tv ads, then
>the recent election in GB didn't take place, nor did any in the
>US prior to 1920.

Once again, MacRae doesn't read what he quotes.  I didn't say that one
can't become known without TV; I said that TV was the cheapest way to
become known.  I note that candidates do become known using TV in GB,
but that access is controlled by the newsfolk.  I prefer to have more
options.

> > Yeah, right.  Those debates and the speeches sure demonstrate that
> > point.  Candidates spend 10 minutes trying to come up with some phrase
> > that TV news will use in the coverage.  TV news is basically sound
> > bites; the only difference between them and short paid spots is in who
> > choses them.
>
>Perfect, then you agree with me.  You state that there is no difference
>between the news broadcast and the tv ad.  So why have the tv ad?
>(Mind you, I don't agree with what you said, but if you are going to
>say it, I may as well use your own statements to show how wrong you are.)

Because the TV ad isn't selected by the newsfolk.  MacRae has stated
that he doesn't want the newsfolk to have veto power over becoming known,
but he opposes alternatives....

>Secondly, please show us how the British campaign was less informative
>than the recent New York primary.  I don't believe your statement that
>a ban on paid tv ads create a less informative campaign, and would
>suggest that you back it up.

The only stuff I've seen from the NY primary was selected by newsfolk.
I agree that it appears to be less informative than that in GB, but I
fail to see how the existence of TV ads "forced" the newsfolk to cover
the NY campaign the way they did.  MacRae insists that the coverage
would be better if left to the newsfolk, but the newsfolk's actual
coverage doesn't match his predictions....

> > (That's the likely result.)  The newscritters will control the debate
> > even more than they do now.  It will become important for political
> > organizations to BUY TV stations (because the news staff gets to
> > choose) instead of renting and sharing them.
>
>Current laws and regulation prohibit political groups from owning
>tv stations.  Are suggesting that those laws would be repealed?  Why?

I'm not suggesting repealing those laws, I'm pointing out that evading
them is easy.  If profitable, it will be done.

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU