From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Banning Political Ads
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:35:16 GMT
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <9204091907.AA16937@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
 > 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.  My
proposal never suggested that *all* tv ads be banned.  Again, I
wonder if you *really* understand my proposal at all.


 > There are only two ways to get a message on TV.  The first is to pay
 > for it directly and the second is to have it broadcast for free,
 > either as news or as part of a program paid for by someone else.
 > MacRae wants to ban paid political uses of TV, so that leaves news
 > access only, which is controlled somewhat by news organizations and
 > somewhat by management that has an opinion.  (Management without an
 > opinion will sell access.)

Interesting that you don't even read your own arguments.  When you
wrote the third sentence above (where you claim that only news broadcasts
would be available) did you forget having just written the second
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.)

So which statement of yours is wrong?  (Hint, I wouldn't suggest that
the LWV doesn't promote tv debates.)


 > >The 'properties' you mention are the fact that broadcast ads suck up
 > >over 80% of the money required to campaign.  I know of no other medium
 > >with that property, do you?
 > 
 > That's not the objectionable property.

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.


 > MacRae complains that it is
 > both expensive AND insubstantive.  Surely he's not going to argue
 > that % expenditure alone is important (because something else
 > will become "most" if political TV is banned).

Yes, I (along with many others) do argue that tv is expensive and
that political campaigns would be cheaper without paid tv ads.  Again,
to refer to the recent election in GB, their campaign costs are much,
much, less than over here because of the ban on paid tv ads.

Face it.  The reality is that tv ads suck up most of the dollars
in an election, and where they are banned, campaign costs are less.


> 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.

Are you a programmer?  You seem to view the world as a set of Boolean
equations.  I suggest banning tv ads to reduce the cost of campaigning
and to increase candidate/voter contact.  You jump up and down and
scream because doing so won't magically make such contact perfect ie:
allow each candidate one-on-one time with *every* man, woman, and child
in the country.  Banning paid tv ads would *improve* such contact, I
never claimed it would create perfection, and only an idealogue would
expect otherwise.


 > 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.

Elections in GB take place.  They are cheaper per day than American
elections due to a ban on paid tv advertising.  This alone is proof
enough that your above statement is simply, and proveably, false.


 > 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.)


 > Campaigns would become more expensive (TV is more efficient than the
 > alternatives), less informative (less effective spending has to reduce
 > the amount of info transferred unless the budgets explode), or both.

Still again, unless you can explain how it is that the British elections
are cheaper (keeping in mind that those who are expert in such matters
all agree it is because of a ban on tv ads), then your statement is
just plain false.

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.


 > (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?


 > It says only that the news media didn't cover LaRouche.

Again, simply not true.  I have never watched a LaRouch paid ad,
yet I am familier with his proposals.  How can that be if, as
you say, it is impossible for anyone to learn about his proposals
without paid tv ads?


						Andrew MacRae