How hard is it to state: Your ads should be talking about your own record and plans for the future. Ads whose content consists entirely of material about another candidate or contain unsupported claims, statistics or “facts” are unacceptable.
snip.
Something is either factual or it is not. Palin was way out of line with that comment, but look how much steam it got. THAT is an excellent example of the problem I’m trying address. People didn’t hear: “They want to add end of life counseling in, and I’m against that.” They heard: " They are going to have panels to kill your granma!" That’s like saying you wrestled a two ton great white shark for twenty straight hours until it tapped out and you rode it back the 100 miles inshore to the dock when you actually caught a tiny sunfish on a bread ball at the lake, then claiming, well what I meant is that I caught a fish.
But you said my version of the script about Adam Schiff supporting the minimum wage and saying that Jack McCoy doesn’t care about working families is (my words) barely acceptable. It talks about Schiff’s plans, and criticizes McCoy’s, and uses facts. For whatever reason, you think it would be better if it was rewritten WITH THE SAME CONTENT but with a different tone. Did my version of the ad have too much red paint?
Not to make this personal, but I’m not even sure if you are interpreting your own rules correctly, which indicates that the rules are too vague.
ETA: Again I ask, what’s the penalty for violating the rules?
Your example was subtle, so i did the best I could with it. It’s not perfect, and the rules might well be too vague. That’s why i put it here to discuss as an idea.
As to penalties, I’m not sure. Part of me would like fines, but perhaps if they rack up enough infractions the FCC just takes away their advertising TV/Radio privileges for a period of time. Every day counts in a campaign, that would hurt pretty bad. Maybe none of that would work. Perhaps they are simply tallied by a watchdog group who then keeps a confidence rating that is shown during debates? For example perhaps McCoy has been playing dirtier than he should and has been making a load of wild claims and unsupported statements. During his debates, his marker might read lower than Bradshaw’s. I don’t know I hadn’t thought that far yet really.
But Palin can just make it a semantic argument, and in semantic arguments, I don’t think its true that “Something is either factual or it is not” . Her claim is that what she meant by “Death Panels” is end of life counseling. Of course, its a pretty big stretch to say that a “Death Panel” is a word for such counseling, but there isn’t really any way to prove that that’s not what Palin meant by the term.
Also note that Sarah Palin wasn’t running for any office when she made her death panel comments, so even if your law passed and worked as you envision, it wouldn’t have made any difference in Palin’s rhetoric against the Health Care Bill.
So, basically, what you want to do is eliminate opinion and non-factual campaigning? So Obama’s ‘Hope and change’ slogan would be illegal? Wearing a flag or other overly patriotic symbols is prohibited? Saying that a woman should have a right of choice/fetus’s should have a right to life is not allowed in public discourse? Saying a war is immoral, a stimulus was needed, or that society should provide health care for all would violate the law?
Every one of those examples would violate the rules as you stated since not a single one of them is factual. They’re all opinion, and apparently opinion should be outlawed. Congrats, you just proposed an idea that would be the largest violation of human rights that Americans have experienced since we created interment camps seven decades ago.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have said that, if your idea ever became law then the FCC will forcefully silence me for it.
My off-the-cuff reaction?
We already have a system where one Party is much more inclined to the pursuit of facthood and truth than the other side.
Guess which side tends to win?
No, he isn’t making any such assertions. He doesn’t say anything of the sort.
The second is no more or less unprovable than the first.
This goes back to what was asked earlier - who gets to decide this? Do we appoint them, like judges, or elect them?
And the notion of a state-sponsored somebody deciding what a citizen may or may not say in support of a political position is an absolute non-starter.
The person - in my opinion, the only person - who is qualified to judge the truth or otherwise of campaign statements is the voter. Efforts, however well-meaning, to take this responsibility away from the voter and give it to the governemnt are, and properly should be, doomed right from the get-go.
Because nobody is any better than anyone else, consistently. No matter who you choose to sit in judgment on campaign ads, his or her judgment is just as subject to regression to the mean as anyone else’s.
Regards,
Shodan
Both, from time to time? I mean, right now the Democrats are in control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress… is that the dishonest party or the honest one? Will that change when the GOP takes one more houses this fall?
As to the OP, my opinion is that negative campaigning is essential to the process. I’m not always just voting for what my candidate is for, but often against what the other candidate is for (either in specific or in detail).
For example, a ubiquitous attack ad in my congressional district this fall is 100% about the GOP candidate’s ethics violations while working for the former governor. I think this is very relevant, and a large reason why I won’t be voting for him. I have to think that both in content and tone it would violate your guidelines.
I also agree with Shodan (gasp) that offloading the responsibility of determining the truthfulness of politicians claims is a rather large blow to the democratic process.
So the current system where we spend more time talking about non issues, dirt from college days, made up stuff, and opinion is a superiour method for delivering the actual facts to people?
If you make attack ads illegal then it’s a good bet they’ll disappear. To what end, I have not a clue. Do they give you the vapors? You even remark that the two proffered parties are very similar, so I must be missing the point of this exercise.
Who said the goal of political campaigns is to brings facts to the people? The goal is to win elections. You may think that voters should only be swayed by facts, but about 350 million Americans think otherwise. If they agreed with you, then emotional appeals wouldn’t work after all.
Which kinda brings to mind a question. The entire premise here boils down to ‘People don’t act the way I think they should act, so we need a law to make them act like I want them to’. Why exactly should you be allowed to force me and everyone else in the country to cast our vote for the reasons you think we should? The idea behind democracy is that someone voting for Palin because they thought she was sexier than Michelle Obama is just as valid as someone basing their vote on a factual analysis of the issues. It is not, nor should it be, up to you to decide who’s voting reasons are superior and enforced across the nation.
While the OP says that candidates should be held to a higher standard, the fact that the current incumbents will make the rules makes this very dangerous. I can imagine someone challenging an incumbent being held to an impossibly high standard. If I understand it correctly, the purpose of the First Amendment is to ensure that the truth be discovered through open discussion, and not defined by anyone in power. So I think the problems are bigger than just the practical ones you mention.
As Tonto so wisely stated to the Lone Ranger after being surrounded by Indians, “What do you mean “we,” white man?”
Sure, the news is always filled with stories of what Sarah Palin’s brood is doing now, or some such nonsense. I don’t care about it and it doesn’t really impact my political views.
It is just like how sometimes I see ads on TV asking me to sell my gold for quick profit. I simply pay no attention to them. I also don’t argue that advertisers should be prohibited from making their products/services more appealing by focusing less on facts.
Although, it would be pretty funny if there were a law that advertisers had to stick to the facts at all costs, and not say bad things about their competitors.
“McDonalds has the Big Mac! It costs $3.15 if you buy the sandwich. There are 850 calories in it, and two slices of USDA beef. We have served millions of them. We would really like it if you bought a Big Mac today. Good day and have a pleasant tomorrow. Thank you. This has been McDonalds speaking to you on the television.”
I think it is perfectly reasonable to point out shortcomings with your opponent’s record (of course, you also have to put forth a program of your own). Negative campaigning, to me, at least, is attacking your opponent’s *motives *for taking the positions and actions in his record.
Thus, I think it is perfectly OK to say, “Jack McCoy voted against the minimum wage 10 times!” if, in fact, McCoy did do so. What I don’t think is OK is saying “He did this because he hates the working man/is in the pocket of the bankers/is a slimy bastard”.
I tend to feel the same way BUT free speech does have its limitations (yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc.) and it seems to me that some of what the OP is aiming for could be feasible under libel & slander laws — I hasten to add, if it weren’t painfully obvious, that I am not a lawyer.
Also, what we’re encountering isn’t a new problem, but it has intensified with the pervasiveness of the communication age. And factcheck.org is neither big enough or ubiquitous enough to turn back the tide of bullshit coming out of politicos’ and pundits’ pusses.
The situation really bothers me. I truly feel the careless methods of the Glenn Becks and Michael Moores divide and thereby weaken this country as much (if not more) than their respective professed attempts to save it.
Not coincidentally, it’s one of the reasons that keeps me coming back to the Dope. You/we come at a topic from all angles and have the annoying but healthy tendency to yelp “Cite” when the bullshitometer leans into the red zone.
Um no.
I think that while people should have the right to vote based on whatever they like, the candidates themselves ought to be held to a standard of accountability in their speech in direct media. I’m not suggesting that analysts, commentators, the public in general etc should think or vote a certain way or have their right to be an idiot curtailed in any manner. I likewise mentioned that I think that all web media is a free play zone as well since the candidate is directly responsible for it’s content. What I am advocating is that if candidate McCoy runs an ad calling Brashaw a child eating cannibal puppy raper, he better have the police reports to back it up. Limiting their speech to their own platforms and factual matters would be a good help in curtailing social idiocy. People may have the right to be morons, but that does not make it an equitable position to those who bother to learn about issues and make an informed decision. If some pundit wants to start a meme that McCoy is going to beat up the ruskies with his ten foot dong, that’s fine. If McCoy says it, he better whip it out. Get it?
Responding to my own hypothesis: FactCheck.org’s article on the legality of truth and mistruths in campaigning.
That was interesting, and sort of sad too. Thanks.
Greaaatt! Who decides what is a violation of this code? The Vestal Virgins? The Oracle at Delphi?
:smack: