Aiming for the Pupular Vote
October 31, 2020 10:39 AM Subscribe
“Watching all the nasty political ads has been a soul-crushing experience.” New York State Assemblyman Al Stirpe has released a new campaign ad and it is refreshingly different.
We can all use a little break from the noise.
We can all use a little break from the noise.
Yup--killing the Fairness Doctrine is, along with deinstitutionalizing mentally ill people, ignoring the AIDS crisis, tripling the national debt, deregulating children's television, funding the Mujahadeen, arming Saddam Hussein, Iran-Contra, 'welfare queens,' the War on Drugs, etc., etc., one of St. Reagan's Greatest Hits.
posted by box at 12:38 PM on October 31, 2020 [19 favorites]
posted by box at 12:38 PM on October 31, 2020 [19 favorites]
Okay, I smiled. Worked on me.
posted by wittgenstein at 12:46 PM on October 31, 2020
posted by wittgenstein at 12:46 PM on October 31, 2020
I don't even know if a station could legally decline political ads. The fairness doctrine was killed/allowed to die, right?
The fairness doctrine only applied to news broadcasts, there are different (still in effect) rules governing political ads.
Stations are required to give "reasonable access" to the official committees of federal candidates at the lowest unit rate. They are not required to allow ads from state and local candidates but if they allow one they need to give everyone access to the same rate. So you can't exclusively sell to one candidate and refuse to carry ads for their opponent. PACs and SuperPACs can be denied at any time.
I dislike these supposedly "refreshing" ads because there's absolutely no content. You have to be so confident in your chances that you think you'll be elected saying nothing about what you want to do or who you are. What possible value is this other than hoping voters will just pick you because you're a nice guy?
Like it or not, paid advertising is one of the primary ways that downballot candidates get attention, especially in crowded media markets, and negative ads are usually way more educational than this.
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 2:16 PM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
The fairness doctrine only applied to news broadcasts, there are different (still in effect) rules governing political ads.
Stations are required to give "reasonable access" to the official committees of federal candidates at the lowest unit rate. They are not required to allow ads from state and local candidates but if they allow one they need to give everyone access to the same rate. So you can't exclusively sell to one candidate and refuse to carry ads for their opponent. PACs and SuperPACs can be denied at any time.
I dislike these supposedly "refreshing" ads because there's absolutely no content. You have to be so confident in your chances that you think you'll be elected saying nothing about what you want to do or who you are. What possible value is this other than hoping voters will just pick you because you're a nice guy?
Like it or not, paid advertising is one of the primary ways that downballot candidates get attention, especially in crowded media markets, and negative ads are usually way more educational than this.
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 2:16 PM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
Between ad-blocking, only watching ad-free streaming media, not listening to the radio, etc, I basically see/her no political ads.
ut of course, they were very prevalent during the World Series, which is the only live tv I have watched this year.
What struck me was the sameness of them all.
They all used the same semi-dramatic music, the same voice-over, the same out of context quote in the same fake stamp font.
There was always an unflattering picture of the opposing candidate, photoshopped to B&W to make them look worse.
And they ended with the advertising candidate smiling in a culturally diverse setting surrounded by a rainbow of people.
You could honestly take any of the commercials and air them 30 years ago and they would blend right in.
Same cliches, different candidates.
posted by madajb at 2:25 PM on October 31, 2020 [2 favorites]
ut of course, they were very prevalent during the World Series, which is the only live tv I have watched this year.
What struck me was the sameness of them all.
They all used the same semi-dramatic music, the same voice-over, the same out of context quote in the same fake stamp font.
There was always an unflattering picture of the opposing candidate, photoshopped to B&W to make them look worse.
And they ended with the advertising candidate smiling in a culturally diverse setting surrounded by a rainbow of people.
You could honestly take any of the commercials and air them 30 years ago and they would blend right in.
Same cliches, different candidates.
posted by madajb at 2:25 PM on October 31, 2020 [2 favorites]
I dislike these supposedly "refreshing" ads because there's absolutely no content. You have to be so confident in your chances that you think you'll be elected saying nothing about what you want to do or who you are. What possible value is this other than hoping voters will just pick you because you're a nice guy?
My initial reaction was agreement (because, after all, literally anybody could make a video snuggling their dog), but I can think of a counterargument. Doesn't traditional advertising often tell you little more than "hey, this thing exists, remember?" And they often associate that thing with externalities that have nothing to do with the product. The endless Geico + Progressive ads do this, for example. When is the last time you learned something from any of them? Yet I would guess that many viewers actually like the ads, because they are entertaining.
The dog snuggle ad couldn't realistically work for anybody, because voters would be offended that some unknown wants their vote based on nothing. But an incumbent with an uncontroversial record can reasonably run an ad that says nothing more than "I continue to exist" in an entertaining way.
posted by anhedonic at 4:05 PM on October 31, 2020 [3 favorites]
My initial reaction was agreement (because, after all, literally anybody could make a video snuggling their dog), but I can think of a counterargument. Doesn't traditional advertising often tell you little more than "hey, this thing exists, remember?" And they often associate that thing with externalities that have nothing to do with the product. The endless Geico + Progressive ads do this, for example. When is the last time you learned something from any of them? Yet I would guess that many viewers actually like the ads, because they are entertaining.
The dog snuggle ad couldn't realistically work for anybody, because voters would be offended that some unknown wants their vote based on nothing. But an incumbent with an uncontroversial record can reasonably run an ad that says nothing more than "I continue to exist" in an entertaining way.
posted by anhedonic at 4:05 PM on October 31, 2020 [3 favorites]
Riley is a good boy.
posted by Windopaene at 4:11 PM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Windopaene at 4:11 PM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
Would be 2020 "funny" if it turned out he was some alt-right Nazi...
But, he pets his cute dog!
posted by Windopaene at 4:12 PM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
But, he pets his cute dog!
posted by Windopaene at 4:12 PM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
Stirpe is a Democrat endorsed by the local unions & the Working Families Party, a progressive third party active in NYS. Enjoy the puppy-petting in good conscience.
posted by ourobouros at 4:44 PM on October 31, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by ourobouros at 4:44 PM on October 31, 2020 [9 favorites]
I would 100% vote for him based on nothing but this video, assuming he was not some kind of monster.
posted by corb at 4:56 PM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 4:56 PM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
Al Stirpe is a good boy. We voted for him.
posted by kinnakeet at 7:04 PM on October 31, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by kinnakeet at 7:04 PM on October 31, 2020 [3 favorites]
« Older An oral history of Sharknado | “Mike Vecchione, they’re calling you on the squid... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I know political ads are a serious income source for local stations, but I often wondered how a station might fare if they made the decision to not carry any political ads and publicise the ad-free harbor to the viewing pubic? Might they get a ratings boost from viewers running away from the ads? I don't even know if a station could legally decline political ads. The fairness doctrine was killed/allowed to die, right?
posted by Thorzdad at 11:11 AM on October 31, 2020