On page 288 in our text the chapter begins to discuss censorship and how it differs between campaign ads and commercial ads. It states that, "Networks are free to recommend changes in product ads and often do so when, in the judgement of their staff the ads are inaccurate, are in poor taste, or embody negative stereotypes. In contrast, it is illegal to censor a candidate’s political ad. Consequently, material that would never be heard or seen in a commercial ad can be included in a candidate ad."
Do you agree or disagree with this stipulation? Can you think of an example where something was shown in a political ad that would have been regulated if it were a commercial ad? Be sure to back your opinion up with evidence from the text or outside sources.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree somewhat with this statement in which I feel when candidates are able to say whatever they wish to in their ads it shows there true color and personality characteristics. If candidates feel like they need to be distasteful to get a point a cross, in my eyes, its only hurting themselves, but they should be allowed to do this so that the public can see how they choose to present themselves.
ReplyDeleteAs they book notes on page 290 "Even if a station manager knows that an ad by a federal candidate is unfair, factually inaccurate, or offensive to aprt of the community, the ad must be aired." I think this is where the line needs to be drawn because I do not think unfactual information should be allowed to be aired. Because this is allowed one never knows what political candidate they should trust because a lot of times messages are clashing. If a candidate wants to be distasteful in an honest way I think that should be allowed, but once they start making things up I think the line needs to be drawn.
The ads that come to mind to me when I think about this is the Norm Coleman and Al Frankin ads for US Senate for Minnesota. Both of each others ads would attack each other and I personally had no idea which ads to believe. I didn't care to do research since they weren't running for my state, but I'm sure people from Minnesota got the same feelings of what candidate do I believe.
I also agree that candidates in a political race should be able to say exactly what they feel. I agree with Ali’s statement about how it shows different individuals true character. While running for office, an individual should be able to try to get their point across in the media without having to worry about censorship. I recall in class when we were discussing smear ads. A lot of people felt that smear ads are trashy and unnecessary. During the time when Al Franken and Norm Coleman were running smear ads, many people were getting incredibly sick of seeing the ads on television. Even though I’m sure some of the advertisements swaying people’s opinions, others were just plain fed up. In addition, some of the ads were making outrageous allegations towards both parties, which were only partly true. I recall seeing a ridiculous ad about how Al Franken “hated animals.” These type of advertisements only make a candidate seem incredibly desperate in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteOn page 290 it states, “A station that has accepted ads from one candidate must accept them from the candidate’s opponents.” As long as both sides are able to get their point across, in the form of smear ads or not, I believe candidates should be able to say how they feel. In the end, the only reputation it will hurt is their own.
Of all the basic rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution, the one that seems to be scrutinized the most is the right to free speech. Freedom of speech exists on a continuum where political speech is the most protected and commercial speech is much, much less protected by the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteAnything related to the running of the United States Government tends to be supported 100% by the Constitution and this is why television networks cannot really censor political ads. Like the text mentions, there are no commercial ads that use aborted babies as an argument for a quality product. Yet, Jimmy Fisher had not been the only one to use such images as an argument that he was a quality candidate.
I agree with this stipulation because as unfortunate as it is, when a network decides to censor a political ad, a small group of probably biased people are making an executive decision that should be left up to the public. The only way the public can decide whether a political ad is fair or not is if the ad is aired and presented to the public. And since each network is FCC-bound to air both sides of a political story (Page 290), it seems fair enough.
I completely agree with the fact that it is illegal to censor a candidate’s political ad, because our Founding Fathers intended for political speech to be strongly protected by the U.S. Constitution. Political speech is the most protected speech in existence. According to the book, political speech is protected by the Constitution until it includes words, phrases, or actions that constitute incitement to violence. The only way political speech can be stifled is if violence is imminent and must be prevented. Political speech is to be held sacred because it is the basis for our democratic society; political speech preserves our revered democratic process and must always be deeply venerated. I believe that political speech in advertisements is so different than advertisements for products that it is almost shameful to compare the two. Political advertisements, though sometimes outright ruthless, are a necessary part of our democracy, because politicians are trying to get elected so they can affect policy decisions and make a difference in the lives of the people they represent. Large companies, however, are selling products or services that were not outlined by our Founders in the supreme law of the land: the Constitution. These products are simply to generate revenue for the company, and are not vital to the deep roots of American government.
ReplyDeleteOne such political advertisement was an online advertisement paid for by the Republican National Committee titled, “Obama TV ad in Berlin (Web).” This advertisement began with the simple statement, “What might an Obama TV ad in Berlin look like? The following parody is our best guess.” After this, interviews are shown with people in Berlin in support of Obama. The interviews show people not discussing issues, but simply following the crowd and using Obama’s slogan, “yes we can,” over and over. One Berliner even says, “if people like Oprah support him, he must be good.” The reason this ad could be offensive to the American people is that it shows one Berliner saying that Obama is good for America and expresses a generalization that the American people are, “superficial.” This web advertisement also shows an interview with a Berliner who says he has American friends who are Marxist and are working for Obama. If a company were to use such accusations in advertisements, they would be deemed offensive because of the democratic, capitalist nature of our country. Though this ad was seen on the internet, similar accusations and statements were made very publicly by the McCain campaign in speeches that aired on television many times.
I disagree that candidates ads cannot be censored. Although I believe that candidates should show who they really are, I do not think they should have the privilege of saying or showing whatever they would like. I think this is unfair to the television ads that cannot do this.
ReplyDeleteIn the text on page 289 it talks about the FCC's right to have a say over what is said on television and radio. This law was made because of George Carlin's obscene language that was used. On the other hand, Barry Commoner was allowed to air a radio commercial that voiced the word "bullshit." And not only once, but twice the word was mentioned.
Although product ads are different than political ads, everyone that sees or hears the product ads with no obscene language, will see or hear the political campaign ads with the unnecessary language.
I think this rule is not only wrong, but unfair. On page 290 the text states "Even if a station manager knows that an ad by a federal candidate is unfair, factually inaccurate, or offensive to part of the community, the ad must be aired." I think that stations should have a right to say no to ads that will misrepresent their station. Again, although political campaigns should show what they really represent, there are other ways to do it than using obscene material.
I do not agree with this stipulation in certain instances. I believe they should be censored but not by the news stations because it gives the news media control over one more aspect of what we view in the media.
ReplyDeleteThe Daisy Commercial used during by Lyndon Johnson in 1964 is one example of an advertisement for a campaign that I feel should have been regulated and would have been possibly censored. (Amelia Felz)