Election day is here! Before the results come in, let's take a moment to go back to the campaign, more specifically TV ads. Today, Jimmy Kimmel put out this segment from his talk show, poking fun at the unnecessary amount of money used to produce and air campaign ads. This Washington Post article analyzes the rise in political campaign ads, especially in this past month. Candidates can spend over $60,000 just on television ads, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s independent expenditure program "has invested more than $60 million on behalf of Democratic candidates."
I understand that in a society in which targeted demographics use television as a main source of media, candidates will want to utilize popular networks and times to air their ads. However, are things going too far? Take into consideration this quote from the Washington Post article: " $80 million out of $111 million spent on broadcast television on congressional campaign ads has been wasted on viewers outside the intended district, according to an analysis by the GOP technology and media-buying firm Targeted Victory." Likewise, networks are making huge sums of money due to these ads, and some even replace popular shows with "political newscasts" in order to rake in as much net profit as possible.
What do you think?
Is it fair in a political race to allow this kind of spending on TV ads?
Should networks be re-arranging their set in order to accommodate political ads and programs?
4 comments:
I do believe it is fair, and more than that it is needed. With cable TV threatened by such sites such as: hulu plus, amazon, apple tv, and countless pirating sites, this is the funding they need to keep afloat. While this will not solve the media crisis it will postpone the inevitable so that Cable providers may figure out new income plan. As for the if it is fair or not, no it is not fair and I never think it will be. As long as money is present the playing field will always be unfair and we must accept that at some level, but we can always strive for better laws and limitations on campaign advertising to counteract the negative impact of money.
I think that Stevin has a good point about ads as a whole but campaign ads are a whole other monster. Campaign ads focus not on policy but personality and a lot of it is negative ads which simply decrease voter turnout (usually on purpose). Should that be allowed? Maybe not so much. Almost everyone watches tv so campaign ads have unfair influence over public opinion while really telling nothing of what the candidate will do in office. But such is campaigns right?
While I do not think this type of spending is fair, because it puts a huge emphasis on campaigns with the highest donors/ best fundraising efforts, I also agree with Stevin that this has been part of the game for a long time and will continue to be in the future. However, on the other hand I do see where the mass spending is coming from because although many of the ads end up being seen by people not within that Congressional district, in the end it still helps the parties achieve that which they are attempting to achieve-putting their representatives into office where they can actually enact change and influence legislation.
I don't think that it is fair for campaigning to be so expensive. Some people (ex. Ross Perot) have enough money to fund the entire process themselves. Meanwhile, others need to get huge public support AND be in one of the major parties AND play ball with PACs, SuperPACs, and lobbyists in order to get that kind of support. There is simply no chance for a better leader who lacks those things to win.
I don't approve of networks redesigning their programs to earn more money, but I think that the alternative would be losing some networks. Advertising is the main source of revenue for the networks, and it would be difficult for many to stay in business without it.
Post a Comment