Broadcasters don't need to broadcast misstatements, do they?
Television broadcasters do not have to run advertisements that are plainly false. No law or regulation requires that they do so, as far as I know. Perhaps the FCC general counsel, or some academic, can double-check this question.
In any case, why don't members of Congress with oversight responsibilities ask broadcasters not to run plainly false ads? Or to set off the deception by giving equal time to the candidate lied about?
Senator Leiberman asked Google to cause YouTube not to run certain clips that the Senator deemed to incite violence. They agreed. That was a good step on both sides.
So why doesn't anyone ask broadcasters to agree not to permit this all-important election to sink to a level of deceit unworthy of the democracy generations have sought to save, and that our brave men and women are fighting for even now?
The real quandary we face is that our candidate isn't white, has an odd name, and an odd background, to go with a paucity of obvious experience in world affairs. His opposition is a "genuine American Hero", a straight talker, a maverick, a reformer, a man with enough experience in world affairs to keep all of us safe. There should be no doubt who the undecideds and independents, all of whom are very information challenged, will vote for.
This is why we have probably made an irreversible mistake in not attacking John McCain as what he really is: a liar, a cheat, a fake hero, and so old he can safely be assumed to be borderline senile. That was the only road to victory. The road is still there, but I doubt there is enough time to travel it before the voting.
September 14, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody remember the Fairness Doctrine? So Fox runs unedited R campaign clips 72 to D campaign clips 28? [Figures are not accurate. airgun177 can look up the article. It may be on this site. If he does, I will not behead any sled dogs today.] And MSGeneralElectric percentages are not much different?
September 14, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why, indeed, Chairman Hundt. This is turning out to be a bang-up season for broadcasters, though, with record ad volume. Why would they turn that down?
What's that, you say? Because it would be in the "public interest"? Gosh, I suppose that if the FCC had taken that (statutory, you may recall) obligation seriously any time in recent memory, it may not be such a laughable thing to bring it up now.
Alas, this is the bed you (and Bill, and Michael, and Kevin . . .) have made. Now we must sleep in it.
September 15, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have argued for years that if there exists public domain information that a claim or assertion is false--that claim can only be published with the proviso that it is a false claim. Where the veracity of the claim is not absolute--they must state the veracity is indeterminate. They are in business. Fine them a million dollars for every piece of misinformation they publish. They all have Lexus-Nexus accounts. They all have Google. They evade their responsibility to the public.
September 15, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to ban false ads, then you will have to ban 99% of the ads on TV and radio. Wrinkle cream that doesn't remove wrinkles, vitamin water that doesn't give you extra energy, dietary "supplements" which don't do anything, "free" offers that cost money, etc.
The basic purpose of advertising is to sell untruth, things that do what they need to do, don't require anything other than to alert people that they exist.
Where do you draw the limit? If a candidate promises to cut waste, and history shows that this never happens are you going to ban the ad, or permit unlikely hope to exist?
Whatever truth in advertising we used to have went out the window when the FDA and FTC abdicated their mandates, expecting more from political campaigns is unrealistic.
Furthermore there is the issue of freedom of speech. TV as private enterprises can, presumably, regulate what they broadcast, but their implicit function as quasi-common carriers also puts a requirement on them to allow for the largest number of voices to be heard.
Isn't this what we have been complaining about, that voices which questioned the admin were kept off the air?
September 15, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've said this before, but I'll say it again:
Marketing is the root of all evil.
And you can quote me on that.
-- ARG
September 15, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink