Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 12 Apr 1992 20:13:50 EDT
From:         Jacob levy <ST802099@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      re: Banning Political Ads

>(i'm really tired, so i hope i'm addressing this to the right person...)
>
>however, andy has continually ignored the suggestions of both myself and
>andrew mcrae that _equal and free_ broadcast time be given to all candidates
>instead of paid ads.  this would decrease campaign expenditures and
>increase the candidates ability to include substance in their debates
>and speaches.
>
>until andy addresses this aspect of the proposition, there is no point in
>further debate, since he is not arguing against the position that has
>been offered.
>
>brni

     Well, I'll argue against this tired old canard.  (Remember the exchange
between Harkin and Brokaw on this subject during the first debate?  Harkin
complained that there wasn't going to be enough free airtime given to the
candidates.  Brokaw responded that there would be six hours of airtime
given to Dem. primary debates alone.  Harkin made some inane comment about
how much time was given to football games and b-grade movies, to which
Brokaw replied that if Harkin paid as much as football advertisers do,
or attracted as wide an audience as a football game, there would be no
problem.)

     There are two versions of this idea running around.  One applies to the
television networks; the other applies to all broadcast media, the same way
the current lowest-available-rate rule applies to all broadcast media.
The principle is the same-- shift the entire cost of educating and informing
the electorate onto some small group of businesses.  Requiring the networks
to give free hour-long spots (or something like that) to candidates has
the followign effects: a) costs three (or four) companies tens of millions
of dollars for something that seems to be a public good which should be paid
for either by voluntary contributions (current) or the taxpayers as a whole;
b) completely failing to educate and inform anybody, since the people
who will watch are thje same people who have already gotten a great deal
of info from newspapers, magazines, and CNN/C-Span style coverage; and
c) giving the media-political elite another chance to complain about the
fact that people aren't watching the *important* stuff.
     The more common proposal to require all broadcast media to give free
ad time to (certain, not all) candidates is even worse.  A) the financial
burden it imposes is proportionally greater-- many radio stations, and not
a few local TV affiliates, would be pushed towards bankruptcy in a heavy
campaign season; while it's unfair to burden the networks exclusively,
at least they're unlikely to go under.  B) The quality of debate would be
unchanged.  Candidates would take lots and lots of thirty-second free attack
spots, since those seem to be effective and voters seem to be bored by
substantive policy debate after a (fairly low) threshold.
     Through matching funds and the lowest-available-rate rule, candidates
have *much* greater access to the airwaves now than they did in, say, 1960.
Anyone here want to tell me that the quality of debate is much improved, and
so we should continue farther down this road and give the candidates free
airtime to do with as they please?  (Who wants to bet whether Jerry would
have done a half-hour interview with Gennifer Flowers if he'd had free New
York airtime?  Clinton would've set up a roundtable discussion about the
evils of the flat tax, interspersed with interviews with Jewish leaders
about Brown's choice of running mates.)
     Mandatory free airtime is unfair, arbiotrarily shifting the cost of
campaigns to broadcasters; and it holds little promise that I can see of
improving things.

Jacob Levy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU