Theodore Sturgeon famously asserted, “ 90 percent of everything is crud.”
Those in our industry who reject the very concept of political advertising are guilty, I think, of condemning the category for the sins of that 90%.
This is a common error. If you are inclined against any particular activity or endeavor, (pop music, video games, TV shows, advertising, whatever), there are oh so many easy targets out there to shoot at—90 percent of them within any given category, if Sturgeon is right, and I think he is.
But the fact that ten percent of any given activity is not crud refutes any categorical condemnation of that activity. Pop music isn’t bad per se. It’s just that most pop music is bad. Advertising isn’t bad per se. It’s just that most advertising is bad.
Critics of political advertising attack it from a different direction. Or at least they think they do. Generally, they don’t condemn advertising as a whole. After all, most of the most vociferous critics of political advertising are admen themselves. They simply feel that humans shouldn’t be commoditized and packaged as if they were beer.
It’s true that political candidates are not breakfast cereal or underwear. They are complicated humans who stand for far more than can be captured in a 30 spot or a direct mail flyer. And they affect people’s lives in sometimes profound ways, in contrast to toilet paper.
People who condemn political advertising argue that it’s wrong to sell a candidate as if he or she were just another household product to be hawked. Doing so belittles the candidate and demeans the political process, blah blah blah. (I must inject here, I’m not sure it is possible to belittle most candidates or to demean the political process. Aren’t they, respectively, self-belittling and self-demeaning?)
One problem with this argument is that this sound-bytey, superficial, packaged goods approach to selling a candidate isn’t necessary or inevitable. It’s just commonly used. Like 90 percent of the time.
It’s perfectly possible for political advertising to be responsible, respectful, thoughtful, to reflect the candidate’s complexity, represent his stance on issues of the day, just as any other form of communication he may choose to employ can. The fact that most candidates don’t use the avenue of advertising in this manner is not a condemnation of advertising, but of those candidates.
Next week, I will argue that the bias built into advertising isn’t a basis for criticizing political advertising. And that advertising’s job isn’t simply to sell things. For these reasons, political advertising is a perfectly legitimate, justifiable and reasonable option for political candidates to use.
In defense of political advertising, Part 1
Written by Jim Morris on Monday, March 24, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
One problem I have always had with Political advertising is that it seems it's the only form of advertising in which you can flat out lie about your candidate or opponent or anything really. You might even be pressured to lie if polls are flat.
While I realize honesty is not an advertiser's most notable quality, at least on this side of the political fence we have a big team of lawyers who jump all over my copy if they find me stretching the truth even a little too thin.
Littlejohn,
First of all, I think candidates very seldom flat out lie.
But they are more inclined to trash opponents, which does contrast with the custom of most advertisers. And they perhaps have more opportunity to spin criticisms of their opponent because the political arena is a lot more messy and vague than the world of consumer products and services.
As for having some form of policing or regulation comparable to the lawyers you refer to prevent candidates from lying and distortion,or at least pointing out the lies, that role is effectively handled by both the opponent and by political groups who advocate in favor of one side or the other. Over the course of an election cycle, I believe that the truth will out if we pay attention.
And that leads to one other point. Because we don't have lawyers to rely on in this arena, it becomes up to each individual to be well-informed enough to be able to ferret out the truth. Is that a bad thing?
Aside from the complex physical connections that make up its infrastructure, the Internet is facilitated by bi- or multi-lateral commercial contracts (e.g., peering agreements), and by technical specifications or protocols that describe how to exchange data over the network. Indeed, the Internet is essentially defined by its interconnections and routing policies.
As of December 30, 2007, 1.319 billion people use the Internet according to Internet World Stats. Writing in the Harvard International Review, philosopher N.J. Slabbert, a writer on policy issues for the Washington, D.C.–based Urban Land Institute, has asserted that the Internet is fast becoming a basic feature of global civilization, so that what has traditionally been called "civil society" is now becoming identical with information technology society as defined by Internet use. - web design company, web designer, web design india
Really nice post. Web Designer | Web Hosting
Post a Comment