Should News Websites/Channels Run Political Ads?

I've decided to move my topic here from this thread.

Now, on the one hand, ads are ads, and everyone likes money; so as long as the news organization proclaims themselves to be objective and unbiased, it's just a source of revenue, nothing sinister.

But on the other hand -- and this is what bothers me -- allowing any outside source to voice their opinon on your website is being silently complicit with whatever they are saying. If a presidential candidate (doesn't have to be the one in question in the above thread, it could be any candidate) posts an ad on their site that indicates (obviously) that they should be president, the aforementioned complicity means that the news organization is not technically being unbiased; they are giving silent support to the candidate in question.

But this brings up another problem: news channels run political ads all the time. Granted, they usually run them for both sides, but how does one ensure one side is not gaining an unfair bias? Even screen time? What if one candidate's ads are especially bad or good, or especially vicious and underhanded?

Basically, I believe any self-respecting news organization should keep political advertising off their website and channel, and out of the newspapers. If political parties want to voice their opinion, they should do so on an opinion show like Hardball, or in an editorial, or some other forum where such personal biases are expected.

What do you think?

Political ads on TV should be banned without question IMO.

I'm glad they're banned here.

I'd expect that the Scotsman (using your example) simply aren't aware of what's being put on the screen of viewers from America. Bear in mind that this is a regional newspaper only sold in Scotland.

I've never seen a political advert on a website for a British party, although I guess that might change. I do know that you only get about 5 - 15minute long TV adverts very occasionally (as the broadcast time for each party is limited under law they can only do this a few times in any one year), they are very clearly marked at the start and end as a "Party Political Broadcast" to prevent confusion or misunderstandings. I think newspaper adverts also need to be marked as political, although I'm struggling to recall ever seeing one.

I don't think you could argue that something that is framed appropriately can't be put on a news-website or channel if that news-service is willing to do so. If they are going to have adverts then they shouldn't be above political adverts where relevant. On the other hand, the context in which you got that advert on the Scotsman website isn't great as its for a foreign country's politics and not very well marked as such. Political advert shouldn't be put on non-domestic websites, otherwise we're going to get McCain adverts on a Hamas supporting website or such nonsense.

(The real problem here is that in America so much money is wasted on politics and political advertising, not the forums that it ends up in.)

@Ahmed: I already addressed the framing; the only way to "frame" such advertisement properly is to send it to where it belongs, to opinion fora such as the ones I mentioned. Even if you clearly delineate such political advertising by saying "This is an unaffiliated political advertisement, we are not in any way associated with the views herein, etc." the fact remains that you are giving them airtime on what should be an unbiased news outlet. The only reason that a political candidate, party, etc. should appear on a news website is when they do something newsworthy like barbecue a baby or something. Political advertising imparts bias, whether you like it or not.

@HoreTore: not a bad idea. But I think the biggest problem remains the biased advertising on an unbiased news channel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Political ads on TV should be banned without question IMO.

I'm glad they're banned here.

---

It sounds good, but do you think most Norwegians could tell you something about each political party? How does the average Norwegian get their information about each party?

I don't see how it baises a news sight anymore then advertising a company will baises there economic coverage

There is a difference between should and can. Media CAN do it, but they SHOULD NOT, becayse what people don't see is that media is supporting that candidate, therefore, it will be pro-thatcandidate. For example, if McCain advertised in The New York Times, you would not see an article bashing McCain, and possibly, they could be bashing Obama instead. They won't be telling the real truth. Nobody does in media, so I see that this is a bit more of old information.

But surely they could find other advertisers then McCain or Obama if they wanted? If they can't then they have bigger troubles then bais.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

I don't see how it baises a news sight anymore then advertising a company will baises there economic coverage

---

Well, advertising will indeed always be a problem for news organizations. But they need to get their revenue from somewhere, and with subscription revenue basically a thing of a past which is a damn shame, by the way) the primary source of revenue is now advertising.

The difference, I guess, is rather subjective. Normal advertising, say for a car company or toilet paper, is acceptable on the grounds that people are used to bull:daisy: in such advertising. Now, granted, we may be "used" to bull in political advertisements as well, but (and yes, I am showing some bias here myself) they tend to be much more subversive in nature. There's also the problem that political advertising is aiming for a direct effect upon the nation's political systems and policies. It's much more powerful and subversive -- and dangerous.

There is also a basic journalistic code of conduct that places special emphasis on having an objective viewpoint towards politics; people who fail to do this are considered to be bad journalists to one degree or another. It's a tradition born from the problems of Yellow Journalism, among other things; a little investigation into that particular snake's pit will give you a good idea why news organizations (should) shy away from any potential political bias.

@Caius: it's true that nobody ever tells the whole truth; the idea is to try your best, hence the problem of political advertisements.

They don't have problem with bias, the problem that media has is that media is run by humans, and humans are subjetive, and money changes the point of view of journalists.

Quote:

---

But surely they could find other advertisers then McCain or Obama if they wanted?

---

Yes, they can. They can also choose who allow to advertise or who not. But I'm not sure if that would be good for the economy of the media channel/newspaper/whatever.

EDIT
@Reverend:

Quote:

---

@Caius: it's true that nobody ever tells the whole truth; the idea is to try your best, hence the problem of political advertisements.

---

We should analyze newspapers then. I'm sure that SOME people never tell the truth. And they claim to tell the truth, to be the leaders of the "Independent Journalism", while they are allied with the government at the moment.

I would be alot happier if most political advertising was stripped away, just give the candidates 30 minutes prime time each week to talk policys and ideas, and maybe side by side adverts in national and local papers, paid for by the goverment, more debates with strict rules would also be helpeful, this way candidates have equal time and chance to discuss thier policys and ideas and no pay masters but the people themselves...

They're just ads. As long as politicians have to pay on the same schedule as everyone else, who cares?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

Well, advertising will indeed always be a problem for news organizations. But they need to get their revenue from somewhere, and with subscription revenue basically a thing of a past which is a damn shame, by the way) the primary source of revenue is now advertising.

The difference, I guess, is rather subjective. Normal advertising, say for a car company or toilet paper, is acceptable on the grounds that people are used to bull:daisy: in such advertising. Now, granted, we may be "used" to bull in political advertisements as well, but (and yes, I am showing some bias here myself) they tend to be much more subversive in nature. There's also the problem that political advertising is aiming for a direct effect upon the nation's political systems and policies. It's much more powerful and subversive -- and dangerous.

There is also a basic journalistic code of conduct that places special emphasis on having an objective viewpoint towards politics; people who fail to do this are considered to be bad journalists to one degree or another. It's a tradition born from the problems of Yellow Journalism, among other things; a little investigation into that particular snake's pit will give you a good idea why news organizations (should) shy away from any potential political bias.

@Caius: it's true that nobody ever tells the whole truth; the idea is to try your best, hence the problem of political advertisements.

---

Yes, but in a newspaper where editorials are already written and endorsements are made I can't see what difference a paid add with the canidates name and maybe a slogan makes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

They're just ads. As long as politicians have to pay on the same schedule as everyone else, who cares?

---

It means the party with more money has the ability to pay for more ads, hence get more air time, and hence get much closer to winning the election. This all means that third-party voices are stifled.

all party's get some airtime here. I am fine with ads shows the many flavours there are to be had. Additional benefit, with an ad you buy time, nobody can cut up the material.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

Yes, but in a newspaper where editorials are already written and endorsements are made I can't see what difference a paid add with the canidates name and maybe a slogan makes.

---

But editorials are expected to have an opinion. They're like the debate shows on TV. People read them for one person's (hopefully informed, or at least intelligent) opinion. Political advertising intrudes on the non-opinion section of news. And it's not just "the candidate's name and maybe a slogan"; I hate to go back to it again, but take a look at the banner ad I cited in the previous thread. That's what you see a lot in America. It's not exactly intelligent advertising, but it has a real effect because there's just enough stupid people out there who can be swayed by the words "Come on, Obama, tell the truth." It's dangerous stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caius

They don't have problem with bias, the problem that media has is that media is run by humans, and humans are subjetive, and money changes the point of view of journalists.

...

We should analyze newspapers then. I'm sure that SOME people never tell the truth. And they claim to tell the truth, to be the leaders of the "Independent Journalism", while they are allied with the government at the moment.

---

Now you're getting into a broader issue of overall bias in the media. I was really just addressing political advertising; dishonest journalism is a seperate, and much bigger, issue entirely.

But for the record, I really don't think there's very many journalists at all who are swayed by money. I think most of the ones who take money from politicians and other sources are already inclined to agree with what the person is saying, or what they want the journalist to say. The money is just an unwritten contract to ensure that loyalty. If they don't particularly like the person, I doubt very many journalist would take money from them.

it should be banned. the newspapers and channels and such are to report news, not be biased. the NY times endorses obama, the wall st. journal endorsed mccain. now i cant trust either of them.
i just need to find some unbiased reporting....... :help:

let them post commercials on MTV or SPIKE or whatever, just not CNN, FOX, or whatever.
people are going to look to there for the issues, and they are going to be swayed by the commercials.
sorry, i like my news without the bias surrounding it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

it should be banned. the newspapers and channels and such are to report news, not be biased. the NY times endorses obama, the wall st. journal endorsed mccain. now i cant trust either of them.
i just need to find some unbiased reporting....... :help:

let them post commercials on MTV or SPIKE or whatever, just not CNN, FOX, or whatever.
people are going to look to there for the issues, and they are going to be swayed by the commercials.
sorry, i like my news without the bias surrounding it.

---

Then they probably shouldn't be biased as to which fabric softener or movie tickets you should buy. Do you believe that all commercials should be banned from news channels? How will they stay on air, magic?

The reality is that they need to finance themselves somehow - should that somehow be government funding? Do you want the government to be in charge of our information?

What about private donations? Would that really be healthy, do you want George Soros or Warren Buffet deciding what they want you to hear?

i have no problem with news channels brodcasting products like fabric softener.
i just mind when they have political ad commercials, which are known to, in some cases, bend the truth, broadcasted.

the news is the news- not a platform from which a candidate can jump off from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

i have no problem with news channels brodcasting products like fabric softener.
i just mind when they have political ad commercials, which are known to, in some cases, bend the truth, broadcasted.

the news is the news- not a platform from which a candidate can jump off from.

---

So people should be able to hear the lies about how one fabric softener is light years better than the next, but they shouldn't see the lies in competing political ads. Why should there be these restrictions? Political ads are good on all channels. If you hear one about McCain that is countered by Obama, which one do you believe? I know! You look for the answer!

There is no such thing as unbiased news.

the difference is that fabric softeners dont make the news. politics does.
when it interfers with the news, then i have a problem with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

it should be banned. the newspapers and channels and such are to report news, not be biased. the NY times endorses obama, the wall st. journal endorsed mccain. now i cant trust either of them.

---

That is journalistic free speech, not running advertisements. The ads that a news channel/newspaper run don't tell you its bias - it is where the campaign feels they can reach their target audience the best.

Now, the question is: Is media created to inform the people, to gain money or both?

Idealy to inform, but in reality its run as a company. Look at all the sensationalist coverage you see, does it really mater? No. But it does gain veiws which means more advertising money for them.

Quote:

---

Idealy to inform, but in reality its run as a company

---

If it is created as a company ruled by money (and ads) and not by the objective to inform... that means that it will have an inclination towards something, and therefore, it will be biased. As far as I know, there are few newspapers that started with this objective.

Corporate Media is created for profit. State media is created to inform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

It sounds good, but do you think most Norwegians could tell you something about each political party? How does the average Norwegian get their information about each party?

---

Would they gain any more knowledge from watching a tv ad? Do you know what coca-cola is made of from watching their ads?

But television is an utterly useless medium for politics anyway(with the exception of documentaries). Cheap shots and empty rhetoric are rewarded, actual discussion and nuances are discouraged. I stopped watching political "debates" on TV a long, long time ago. Newspapers, I say! :smash:

There aren't any debates anymore (with exception of the Us ones)

To add another layer of fun, I know of a TV station that would charge the candidate they didn’t like more per spot than the candidate they did like. They also had special political season pricing where everything got 100-300% more pricy. Money, politics and the media are a fun combination. :laugh4:

I also got to see some of the TV commercials that they refused to run, wow it is really crazy what some politicians will try and say. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caius

There aren't any debates anymore (with exception of the Us ones)

---

You don't have debates in Argentina?