Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

Scribbler1 · Oct 28, 2003, 11:58 pm

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (casual,)
just out of curiousity..

if there where no TV adds, whatsoever, how would you get out to all the people in the country? travel around, knocking on each door with and invitation for a polictial conference and brochures?

sorry if it may sounds harsh, but tv adds are a must for achieving the most upright results on a vote....<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

The problem is not with the ads themselves, but their content. Try a little test and then make up your mind. Use your memory or even a little notebook and write down the gist of every political ad (local or national) and note each candidate. In a given number of TV or radio ads, how many times does the candidate say where he/she stands and what they'll do if elected, and how many simply say how much the other guy sucks? Not only are these ads on the knife-edge of slanderous, they serve only to get you to vote AGAINST someone, and not FOR someone.. The end result is a nation of sheep believing their guy must be good because the other guy is so BAD!
Then you have the law-skirting attack ads paid for by so-called "independent" voter groups which are usually fronts for one party or the other. A candidate can spend only so much, but these front groups can spend anything they like. They usually attack under the pretense of getting you involved but usually end up implying that the "other" candidate is a bum, he stinks on ice, and you should write to HIM and tell him what a rotten job he's doing. Of course the sheep won't write but they are left with an indelible impression that this candidate deserves to die more than be (re)elected.
This is nothing new. I recall a Nixon commercial which mentioned Barry Goldwater and then showed a little girl with a flower, immediately followed by a shot of an A-bomb mushroom cloud. Not a word of dialogue but the sheep were left "knowing" Goldwater would have started a nuclear war with the Soviet Union before his ass even warmed up the chair in the Oval Office. So Nixon was elected, and we all know what a great guy HE was.
I don't know the answer to this, but some kind of editorial policing must be done by the media, instead of running anything that makes them money.
(this rant paid for by the people against whatever I'm against)

Oct 28, 2003, 11:58 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (casual,) just out of curiousity.. if there where no TV adds, whatsoever, how would you get out to all the people in the country? travel around, knocking on each door with and invitation for a polictial conference and brochures? sorry if it may sounds harsh, but tv adds are a must for achieving the most upright results on a vote....<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The problem is not with the ads themselves, but their content. Try a little test and then make up your mind. Use your memory or even a little notebook and write down the gist of every political ad (local or national) and note each candidate. In a given number of TV or radio ads, how many times does the candidate say where he/she stands and what they'll do if elected, and how many simply say how much the other guy sucks? Not only are these ads on the knife-edge of slanderous, they serve only to get you to vote AGAINST someone, and not FOR someone.. The end result is a nation of sheep believing their guy must be good because the other guy is so BAD! Then you have the law-skirting attack ads paid for by so-called "independent" voter groups which are usually fronts for one party or the other. A candidate can spend only so much, but these front groups can spend anything they like. They usually attack under the pretense of getting you involved but usually end up implying that the "other" candidate is a bum, he stinks on ice, and you should write to HIM and tell him what a rotten job he's doing. Of course the sheep won't write but they are left with an indelible impression that this candidate deserves to die more than be (re)elected. This is nothing new. I recall a Nixon commercial which mentioned Barry Goldwater and then showed a little girl with a flower, immediately followed by a shot of an A-bomb mushroom cloud. Not a word of dialogue but the sheep were left "knowing" Goldwater would have started a nuclear war with the Soviet Union before his ass even warmed up the chair in the Oval Office. So Nixon was elected, and we all know what a great guy HE was. I don't know the answer to this, but some kind of editorial policing must be done by the media, instead of running anything that makes them money. (this rant paid for by the people against whatever I'm against) Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.