Lamenting that there's no legal recourse against factually inaccurate political advertising, Time's Amy Sullivan scoffed at the notion that voters are smart enough toweigh campaign ads with a grain of salt. But her language seems to suggest not only that American voters are dumb, but that government regulation, not journalistic vigilance, would be the only long-term solution.
The relevant excerpt from her September 23 post, "Truth in Advertising? Not for Political Ads" (excerpt mine):
In a country with a free press, after all, journalists are able to fact-check campaign advertisements and let voters know when claims are exaggerated or misleading. What does it matter if McCain says Obama would impose a new tax burden on middle-class families or if Obama claims that McCain proposed abolishing the Department of Education? Candidates lie, fact-checkers out them, and voters have all the information they need to make their choices.
But the free market of ideas doesn't always work so well. As candidates know, a far greater percentage of voters hear the original lie in a campaign ad than ever read about the fact-checked version in a local paper or a website like Factcheck.org or Politifact.com. And even if voters do hear the refutation of an ad's claims, studies show that may not alter their perceptions created by the original ad. It may well be that the standards for commercial advertising have worked too well, instilling in many viewers the belief that what they hear on television is mostly true.
Might I suggest it's not that "the free market of ideas" doesn't work, it's that voters by and large eschew liberally biased media, liberal politicians and liberal policy prescriptions?
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Problem
September 24, 2008 - 14:43 ET by docbis less than 25% of people go to factchecker...they only have time to listen to news and sound bites...much less blog for the truth!!!
Many, on both sides, do not want to read anything that might not agree with their view....ostrich / sand and etc.
That is why the polls run poorly and the electorate is biased and divided.
Not a bad suggestion there
September 24, 2008 - 14:44 ET by MikeknaJNot a bad suggestion there at the end.
My mind boggles at the thought of a government agency that would oversee political ads...
"Look, when Keith anchors, he plays it straight down the line.”
-MSNBC President Phil Griffin
http://www.xanga.com/mikeknaj
Media power
September 24, 2008 - 14:51 ET by KC MulvilleRemember the old survey that asked incoming journalist majors why they chose journalism? "To make a difference" was the most common answer. The problem is that to make a difference, you have to be a player.
To use a sports analogy, the media are supposed to be referees, not players. That means they're doing a good job when they're not interfering with the game. But as we see, too many of them can't resist using their position to influence the outcome.
And now these biased, unelected, unaccountable, and irresponsible players want more referee power? No.
News Media
September 24, 2008 - 15:09 ET by UtherpendThe Job of the media is the report the FACTS, not the truth, not opinion, the FACTS. They do not have the right to put thier spin on an issue or story other wise in my opinion they are taking ownership of it and should be held accountable for libel.
"The Job of the media is the report the FACTS, not the truth"
September 26, 2008 - 00:28 ET by Abe_JeffersonUNFREAKNBELIEVABLE
lies
September 24, 2008 - 15:13 ET by WR JonasHow is it a lie for McCain to say that Obama would create a greater burden for middle class tax payers ? If he is elected we will surely find out. Until then it is just opinion. After the facts are established we ascertain what the truth is relative to those facts .
For example we could say Amy Sullivan is a biased liberal writer with no objectivity. I bet John mMcCain and I come closer to the truth than Amy Sullivan . Just opinion folks.
lies
September 24, 2008 - 15:16 ET by WR JonasHow is it a lie for McCain to say that Obama would create a greater burden for middle class tax payers ? If he is elected we will surely find out. Until then it is just opinion. After the facts are established we ascertain what the truth is relative to those facts .
For example we could say Amy Sullivan is a biased liberal writer with no objectivity. I bet John mMcCain and I come closer to the truth than Amy Sullivan . Just opinion folks.
lies
September 24, 2008 - 15:16 ET by WR JonasHow is it a lie for McCain to say that Obama would create a greater burden for middle class tax payers ? If he is elected we will surely find out. Until then it is just opinion. After the facts are established we ascertain what the truth is relative to those facts .
For example we could say Amy Sullivan is a biased liberal writer with no objectivity. I bet John mMcCain and I come closer to the truth than Amy Sullivan . Just opinion folks.
WOW! A three bagger . I
September 24, 2008 - 15:19 ET by WR JonasWOW! A three bagger . I apologize. I guess I need to double up on the medication.
As it turns out
September 24, 2008 - 16:15 ET by dasherAs it turns out factcheck.org is not reliable either. They have blown some serious factchecks recently.
"Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P.J.O'Rourke
I wonder if "journalists"
September 24, 2008 - 16:18 ET by mattmI wonder if "journalists" could survive fact-checking...
They forgot to mention News
September 24, 2008 - 17:04 ET by kgThey forgot to mention News Busters......Yea, right!
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
OK.... so when obama
September 24, 2008 - 18:18 ET by MidAmericaOK.... so when obama says in a campaign ad that he is ready to be President and will change Washington I believe any investigation of that claim would yeild that this was a false statement simply because there is no proof that it is true.
Sullivan is a facist, plain
September 24, 2008 - 19:06 ET by zfSullivan is a facist, plain and simple. Taking over control of what canidates can say or not say is anti-democracy at it's finest. She doesn't like what certain candidates say and how people will respond, so let "smart" people take over and dictate what what we hear from our own government officials so we brainwash the public with our agenda. Just what we need, a new bureacracy to regulate what campaigns say, that would become a political tool as soon as it appears.
Go to hell, Mrs. Sullivan.
Oops! Double post!
September 25, 2008 - 02:21 ET by tomnkikiOops! Double post!
"In a country with a free
September 25, 2008 - 02:21 ET by tomnkiki"In a country with a free press, after all, journalists are able to
fact-check campaign advertisements and let voters know when claims are
exaggerated or misleading."
*blink blink*
Since when does the MSM ever bother with fact-checking, or giving us an unbiased, balanced view of both candidates and the news in general?? Sullivan, do you remember your dear friend, Dan Rather? What a pillar of unbiased fact-checking he turned out to be. Oh yes, don't forget the debacle where CBS touted Cindy McCain's outfit(including jewelry) to be valued at $300,000, and now they admit they were mistaken(see article further down). So much for fact-checking ANYTHING there. Also, who pays $280,000 for a pair of diamond earrings? A simple pair of solitaire earrings doesn't cost anything close to that, even the Dems. beloved Hollyweird celebs. wouldn't pay that much for a pair of diamond earrings. Get real, Sullivan!