| « I got my copy of The Handmaid's Tale today. | Everyday Apocalypse » |
06/15/04
Political ads and false advertising
Apparently, candidates seeking political office are not held to the same standards of truthfulness as manufacturers of consumer goods. This is what I found out when I read this interesting article at FactCheck.org. I had never considered this issue before, and it is an intriguing one. After all, is there really that much difference between selling a product and selling a candidate?
There have been several attempts at making laws against deceitful campaign ads, but they have all been struck down in higher courts on First Amendment grounds. In addition to the legal precedent that has been established, the article points out that it is nearly impossible to enforce such laws. For one thing, the legal process against false ads is so long that by the time a verdict is reached, the election is likely over, and the ad has done its damage. Additionally, in order to prove intentional dishonesty, it must be proved not only that the ad is false, but that the candidate or campaign manager was fully aware of its falsehood. This can be hard to prove in court.
...
While the article explains some reasons given for allowing misleading ads, it fails to explain the difference between political ads and product ads. It seems hypocritical to say that one form of dishonest advertising is inadmissible, while another is protected as free speech, especially when the stakes riding on the latter are so much greater. Also, we already have laws that restrict a person's right to free speech when it comes to bald-faced lies. People are sued for libel and slander all the time.
On the other hand, any step toward censoring or banning political ads seems dangerous to me, even if it is in the name of truth. This is a complicated issue, and I am far from forming a solid opinion about it. In reality, though, I doubt it matters. No conceivable law could ever stop politicians from lying in an election year. I suppose the only solution is what the people at FactCheck.org suggest: "it's pretty much up to [voters] to sort out who's lying and who's not in a political campaign. Nobody said Democracy was supposed to be easy."
Let the voter beware.
3 comments
A similar issue Danny and I have discussed:
The ease with which companies (pharmaceutical especially) and other groups can send a video package from their Public Relations department to a local news station, have said station cut and create voice over (or, God forbid, show it as is) and present it to viewers as if it were an actual (unbiased) news item. I think most people would be shocked at how often this happens (Danny almost cracked after watching the documentary version of Toxic Sludge is Good for You). To bring this back to the political arena, the Bush administration recently (a few months ago) sent out a fake 'news' package, complete with fake interviewees, in order to promote a policy I really wish I could remember. (I'll keep trying to find it so that you can't accuse me of making this up.) Scary stuff. 
The pr package you speak of was regarding changes being made to Medicare. I found an article on it at the Washington Post website here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41077-2004May19.html
I originally saw a commentary on this in the Chicago Tribune's OpEd page a few months ago. The commentary mostly wondered who this "reporter" was who appeared in the video. 
Speaking of politics . . .
Here's a link Kyle and others will have fun with.
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/index.html
See where you fall on the political compass. I was somewhere around -2 on both axes, I think. Explore the site to see where the 2004 election candidates fall, and be sure to do the "iconochasms" quiz. Lots of surprises there that remind me how complex people are! 
Comment feed for this post
Recent comments