| Starting from the business end, why do networks continue to air ads they are shown to be false, aside from regulations and legal matters, why don't consumers hold networks accountable for airing false ads?
I've beat this drum many times before - conservatives can do this, they can organize and boycott, or just demonstrate a serious threat of boycott and get ads (political or consumer products) pulled from the air rapidly. Liberals...not so much...or at all really. Until we build an infrastructure and get the level of engagement year round on our side that exists on the right, we should expect to lose this battle 9 out of 10 times. Or 999 out of 1000...
The networks are self interested businesses, where their cause is often benefited by the Right anyway. They are also in fear of the laws that are supposed to protect campaigns/democracy, laws that require networks to air ads for campaigns. The laws are good in that they prevent a network or networks from shutting out one party from ads during an election cycle. It would be a good idea to amend these laws to include a method of screening or rejection for blatantly false ads. The fear presented is that a network could challenge all ads from one side, forcing them to delay airing, possibly preventing an ad from airing in the last few days of a contested election or burdening a campaign with legal fees in the defense of honest ads.
Why aren't political ads subject to slander/liable charges? I can't answer this, maybe a legal expert can...but really this is a process that would be useless most of the time during a campaign. A candidate accusing the other of slander would likely appear weak/defensive anyway.
Why not FEC penalties...the candidates have to approve the messages, why not attach monetary penalties to the airing of blatantly false ads? First, the penalties would likely not be incurred during the given campaign, taken months or years to be processed. Candidates making accusations of false ads would again likely appear weak, the FEC itself is subject to political appointment and generally seen as weak. Worse, most campaigns willing to air the false ads would also be willing to solicit donations just to cover the expected fines (overtly or covertly) and just factor it in to the cost of doing business. Often FEC penalties today are insignificant compared to the impacts the violations may have had, right now we have a Presidential Candidate who has violated FEC rules a few times during his campaign and received no penalty or scrutiny.
With rulings like the Jack Davis Millionaire amendment challenge, it isn't likely to see the courts come to bat for Democracy on this issue any time soon. Likely the solution will have to be a piece of massive campaign ethics reform legislation, which ideally would include some elements (or complete) public financing of elections. This won't happen this cycle, so we must play with in the system we have.
I support candidates who maintain honest ads, focused on issues - not fear. I expect my candidates to stand up and challenge lies and smears head on and NOT call the opponent "good" or "honorable" when they engage in such tactics. I believe the media has a responsibility at which they are failing miserably, as they did in 04, and should be held accountable. How we do that, I don't really know, I'm open to suggestions. Making them (media execs, news anchors, commentators, everyone at Fox News, publishers, editors, etc etc) stand on the sidewalks and writing "we in the media are money whoring mercenaries with no honor or decency" on blackboards 9 trillion times might give me some joy... |
STATE BLOGS
