Ban TV campaign ads: That's half the battle

  • Article by: LORIN R. ROBINSON
  • Updated: November 18, 2012 - 5:27 PM

Local stations -- or the media conglomerates that own them -- are getting half of the escalating amount of money that's being spent.

  • 50
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
sluggo220Nov. 18, 12 5:41 PM

I couldn't agree more. All the ads by both major parties are half-truths anyway.

46
3
chiefreynoldsNov. 18, 12 6:02 PM

I always thought there should be a strict campaign season, like football. But no ads is a better idea. Incredibly sick of the ads and we will start seeing them for Gov in about a year from now. ICK.

49
0
my4centsNov. 18, 12 6:05 PM

First of all, the writer is assuming a problem, he admits that there may be no "problem" to fix. Didn't we just reject a state Constitutional amendment because we couldn't PROVE that a problem exists? Second, why is it the solution to this "possible" problem should put new government bans on only one type of business? Advertisers of all stripes choose TV ads because they work. I guess someone who writes and is in a competing business wouldn't be looking for an advantage, would they?

5
37
Lifeguard06Nov. 18, 12 6:13 PM

Try having all the media come out of fargo so we got nd mn and sd campaign ads.

10
0
chavistaNov. 18, 12 6:29 PM

Just make all ads be fact checked for the truth before they can go on television, radio, on anywhere else. We'd be down to a maximum of two ads in no time.

34
1
pumiceNov. 18, 12 6:41 PM

Re: "But no ads is a better idea." "No ads" is not an option, chiefreynolds. "No ads" would be a violation of free speech. What Lorin Robinson suggests is free advertising time--public service announcements--literally, free speech. (From the article: "Why should broadcasters have made $3 billion in 2012 by commercializing political communication that should be offered free as a public service -- a part of licensees' commitment to serve the public interest?")

18
8
sharkysharkNov. 18, 12 6:41 PM

There is nowhere that "truth in advertising" is more necessary than politics. The liars and cheaters should be held personally accountable for the claims they make about the "other guy".

27
0
dsteele04Nov. 18, 12 6:50 PM

Strip media ownership, as we've done in the past, from those whose control poses flagrant conflict of interest and recognize it as the first step on the path to restoring, stability, harmony and trust in the nation. Show me a nation that once had fair media, that conscience of nations, and I'll show you a nation that once had good government!

13
1
ranger78Nov. 18, 12 7:01 PM

Ban TV ads. That's your solution? Just what part of freedom of speech don't you understand?

5
30
boris123Nov. 18, 12 7:18 PM

You might wish to check on the 1st amendment, which by the way is rather relevant to the newspaper business, before making a bonehead suggestion. The money means nothing. People are free donate money, time and talent to candidates they support. Voters need to be responsible to check on candidates before voting. There is no problem with money. There is a problem with the nanny state wanting to nurse you through and entire life. The solution is to reduce dependence on govt and others tand start to think for yourself and be responsible for yourself. It have nothing to do with money.

4
31

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT