<9204022032.AA12313@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 09:13:56 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Banning Political Ads

> > >As opposed to the current state where "TV Ad Execs" exercise that
> > >power.  Tell me why you beleive that a ad salesman is better at
> > >judging the newsworthyness of an issue than a journalist.
> >
> > No, that's not the current state.  TV coverage happens when
> > journalists find something newsworthy (and the broadcaster agrees) OR
> > when the cause involved has money.  MacRae thinks that only the former
> > is worthy of being heard.
>
>Yes, that is that current state.  If you want to run a paid political
>ad on tv, it is up to the sales manager at the station as to whether
>or not that ad runs (as the people trying to legalize pot about their
>efforts to run ads on local tv stations in Indiana.)

But, if you want TV coverage, you can either get an ad or you can get
news coverage.

The pot legalization folks have had very little success in getting
their message out through the news.  Most of the current (albeit
meager) coverage comes out of their efforts to place an ad.  Abolishing
ads cuts them out quite effectively....

>I trust the news organizations far more than I trust the sales managers.

I don't trust the news organizations enough to give them complete
power.

> > Hold it.  If 30 second TV spots are evil, then why are flyers and
> > bumper stickers acceptable?
>
>Well, I guess because they aren't broadcast.  Are you sure you know
>what we are talking about?

MacRae has argued that we should ban paid TV coverage because it has
certain properties.  Now we find that the properties don't matter,
that he doesn't want to restrict other political speech with the same
properties.

> > And, as I've pointed out several times, eliminating 30 second TV spots
>> won't increase the substance of debate; insubstantial political debate
>> predates TV by centuries.
>
>Then why to you keep trying to show how essential paid political ads
>on tv and radio are to our election process?  What was all that math
>for if tv and radio have had no effect on the substance of campaigns?

As I've written every time I've posted the arithmetic; it merely
proves that significant personal contact is impossible in nationwide
elections (as well as many local or state elections) for reasons that
have nothing to do with the existence of TV.  (See the very next thing
that MacRae quoted.)

> > ... I've "proved" that a large
> > voting population makes it impossible to have significant personal
> > contact between a large fraction of the voters and candidates.  That's
> > independent of the existence of TV.
>
>On the other hand, you have not 'proved' that paid political ads are
>essential to the democratic process.

I also haven't proved that political parties or newspapers are either.
(Considering that they aren't....)  Instead, I've responded to
MacRae's actual arguments about the properties of TV and the changes
that one can expect from restricting it.

> > Not at all.  I'm pointing out that LaRouche used LESS total time to
> > deliver more substance.  He detailed programs.  He discussed funding
> > and tax system changes and reorganization, creation, and destruction
> > of govt agencies.  All on paid TV.
>
>Was any of it carried in any newspapers or as part of any broadcast
>news?  IF not, why not?

And what would that prove?  (Remember the pot legalizers....)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU