Political Ads -- What Crosses the Line and What Doesn't?

[Coito ergo sum]

Allen West beating up an old lady?

Mitt Romney killed my wife ....

Obama Quietly Announced Plan to Gut Welfare Reform:

Are any of these ads beyond the pale? What say our non-American members? Are these ads no big deal, given what you see in your own elections? Or, are they over the line?

Any other ads problematic?

[Audley Strange]

All advertising is, to me, problematic. It says "We HAVE to spend all this money schilling our shit to you, because you'd be too sensible to buy into it otherwise."

[Seth]

No political speech is to be prohibited, period. If you think today's ads are vicious, you ought to go review some of the broadsheets of 18th century American (and UK) politics. The phrase "yellow journalism" comes from that era, when there was absolutely no constraint, nor was any needed.

The Founders created the First Amendment precisely because they trusted that every individual is smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to political campaigning, and they believed that scurrilous accusations would harm the accuser more in the end and so the system was self-regulating.

There should be NO regulations about political speech, including zero regulations about donating to political campaigns for anyone. Leave it up to the electorate to decide who is telling the truth and who is lying. We don't need government nannies trying to parse political claims for us. Down that road lies censorship, control and manipulation of the media by the incumbents, which is exactly what the First Amendment is intended to prevent.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Political Ads -- What Crosses the Line and What Doesn't?

In America it probably all crosses the line. Your entire political discourse at the moment is like some twisted surreal satire.

[Seth]

Political Ads -- What Crosses the Line and What Doesn't?

In America it probably all crosses the line. Your entire political discourse at the moment is like some twisted surreal satire.

That's the way I like it. I love it when politicians lose their cool and go negative because it shows the electorate what they are really like, which is far more revealing than anything they actually say.

[Coito ergo sum]

Political Ads -- What Crosses the Line and What Doesn't?

In America it probably all crosses the line. Your entire political discourse at the moment is like some twisted surreal satire.

Which do you find are good examples of said twisted satire?

[Clinton Huxley]

Bah, the public gets what the public wants. If political discourse is conducted at the lowest-common denominator of soundbite insults, half-truths, downright lies and bullshit it's because that is what the public responds to. The UK is no better than the US. The 2.5 main parties here are much more interested in ripping chunks out of each other than in doing what is good for the country.

[pErvinalia]

Haven't watched them all yet. Just watched the first one. While it is incredibly low-brow, I did find it funny (I mean independent of the points being raised). I think a bit of humour is good, but of course if all the ads were like that, I would think that would be thoroughly ridiculous. I guess what I'm saying is that while the ad is pretty stupid, it was funny, and in the right mix, ads like that have a valid place.

[pErvinalia]

The second one: I think the concept is absolutely valid, although i think it goes on too long. That is, it spends most of it's time talking about the wife instead of Romney. In short format I think that would be a perfectly acceptable ad. In long form, I give it a thumbs down.

[pErvinalia]

The last one: As long as it is factually true, then I don't see a problem with it.

How do these ads compare to Australia? Well they are all much higher quality and better produced than Australian political ads (except maybe the first one). Are these ads above by the parties themselves or by other organisations? In Australia we don't see a lot of political advertising outside of the parties contesting the election. Although in the last couple of campaigns I've paid attention to, there has been a stronger presence of pro-union and pro-mining and to a lesser extent pro-green ads. I'm not sure what our exact regulations are on election advertising. I have a feeling we have quite strict rules.

Over all, i'd say that all these ads are fine (except maybe the second one) as long as these negative ones didn't form a majority of the election ads.

[Coito ergo sum]

The second one: I think the concept is absolutely valid, although i think it goes on too long. That is, it spends most of it's time talking about the wife instead of Romney. In short format I think that would be a perfectly acceptable ad. In long form, I give it a thumbs down.

Other than the fact that is a complete and utter falsehood, of course?

I mean -- Romney left Bain Capital in 1999. The steel company continued in business until 2001, when it went belly up and Mr. Soptic was offered a "buyout." After leaving the steel company, Mr. Soptic took a job at another company, but declined their benefits package, which included health insurance. His wife continued working for her company, with health insurance through her employer until 2003 when she left their employ due to an injury. Mrs. Soptic, a heavy smoker, wasn't even diagnosed with lung cancer until 2006.

The person who was in charge of Bain Capital in 2001 when the company was shut down was Johnathan Levine, who is a high level Obama fundraiser right now.

And, you think this advertisement is valid? Blaming Romney for her death?

[Coito ergo sum]

The second one: I think the concept is absolutely valid, although i think it goes on too long. That is, it spends most of it's time talking about the wife instead of Romney. In short format I think that would be a perfectly acceptable ad. In long form, I give it a thumbs down.

Oh, and by the way - that advertisement was published by a corporation. I thought you took the position that corporations should not be allowed to influence politics?

[pErvinalia]

FFS, take your butthurt and go have a sook in the corner. You're an infant.

[pErvinalia]

The second one: I think the concept is absolutely valid, although i think it goes on too long. That is, it spends most of it's time talking about the wife instead of Romney. In short format I think that would be a perfectly acceptable ad. In long form, I give it a thumbs down.

Other than the fact that is a complete and utter falsehood, of course?

I mean -- Romney left Bain Capital in 1999. The steel company continued in business until 2001, when it went belly up and Mr. Soptic was offered a "buyout." After leaving the steel company, Mr. Soptic took a job at another company, but declined their benefits package, which included health insurance. His wife continued working for her company, with health insurance through her employer until 2003 when she left their employ due to an injury. Mrs. Soptic, a heavy smoker, wasn't even diagnosed with lung cancer until 2006.

The person who was in charge of Bain Capital in 2001 when the company was shut down was Johnathan Levine, who is a high level Obama fundraiser right now.

And, you think this advertisement is valid? Blaming Romney for her death?

Ok, I should have been more clear. It is a valid concept if the premise it is based on is true. I kind of thought that would go without saying.

[Warren Dew]

I mostly agree with Seth. I do think the makers and actors in the ads should be and probably are subject to libel suits.

When I first read a description of the ad against Allen West, I thought the concept was repugnant, because I thought it would be an extremely effective use of racism given it was airing in Florida, where there are still a fair number of people who vote on race. However, the way it was done used ineffectual humor - perhaps because its creators were embarassed about its racist content - so it ended up being ineffective. I notice no one is complaining about the racism since it's being used by Democrats rather than Republicans.

The second ad is the only one that probably breaks libel laws. As Coito points out, the plant wasn't closed until after Romney left Bain, and soon afterwards, the guy turned down health insurance that would have covered his wife - because she already had insurance. That said, the backlash against this ad seems to be driving up Obama's negatives, and I doubt Romney will take the public relations hit that he'd have to take if he sued.

The third ad, while not libel, is a significant exaggeration: the Obama administration invited states to submit requests to waive the welfare work requirements that had previously been considered unwaivable, but that's different from an across the board cancellation of the requirements. Usually Romney is really good about providing details like that, which in this case would still be pretty damning, so I'm concerned his campaign managers are going off the rails a bit. The ad may help excite the Republican base, but I'm sure the Democratic base will also be excited about not having to work for their welfare any more, so the ad may not do much good.