What is disturbing is that everyone is required by law to be truthful in advertisements EXCEPT for politicians.
What is even more distrubing is that people for the most part buy into negative campaign advertising - truthful or not - which gives the politicos an incentive to keep on doing it and keep on lying.
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
Steve,Originally Posted by Steve Machol
What is disturbing is that everyone is required by law to be truthful in advertisements EXCEPT for politicians.
What is even more distrubing is that people for the most part buy into negative campaign advertising - truthful or not - which gives the politicos an incentive to keep on doing it and keep on lying.
Please forgive me but, even though the law requires truth in advertising can you honestly tell me that marketing ads are really telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about their products? I can name several that if people honestly believe they're telling the truth about their products perhaps then those people haven't been getting out much ;)
Nope! It's not just the politicos doing it not to mention many of the things being said in the ads are true...but there are many things being left out of the equation "Guilty by omission" so to speak. But then as I've said before and will say again it is an election year. Did you really expect anything different? Surely not.
harry,
I am curious where does the "soldier about town" go to purchase their own state of the art, up-to-date flack vests? I too am intrested in purchasing one for myself. Any information would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Darris C.
I am curious where does the "soldier about town" go to purchase their own state of the art, up-to-date flack vests? I too am intrested in purchasing one for myself. Any information would be greatly appreciated.
http://www.usabodyarmor.com/
Jana Lewis
ABOC , NCLE
A fine quotation is a diamond on the finger of a man of wit, and a pebble in the hand of a fool.
Joseph Roux
I didn't say that at all. I said that advertisers by law are required to tell the truth as per FCC regulations. The fact that some get away with not telling the truth is a credit(?) to their marketing and legal departments and to a Governement that selectively enforces the laws.
Nonetheless a compnay can be sanctioned for purposely lying in advertising while Politicians are entirely immune to such sanctions and are totally free to lie as much as they want.
And no - I really don't expect anything different since as I stated, lying and negative advertising work - specifically because a vast number of Americans don't take the time and energy to view these advertisements critically. The fault is not with the politicians. They are doing this because it works and because we don't hold them accountable.
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
Not really. And what's the point?
"I didn't say that at all."
No, you said that everyone was required by law to be truthful in advertisements "EXCEPT" the politicians. I was showing a parallel between the two. Product advertisements are just as truthful as political ads I'm afraid.
"Nonetheless a compnay can be sanctioned for purposely lying in advertising while Politicians are entirely immune to such sanctions and are totally free to lie as much as they want."
A politician can be held accountable if someone were willing to push the issue just like with marketing advertisers. It's called defamation of character and slander in legal terms but would have to be persued by the person in being spoken of. That is the reason we don't see it happen. It would be akin to you calling me a name and chm bringing suit against it. If I could care less then the suit won't go anywhere. These guys running for office know historically this kind of thing happens so they defend themselves to an extent and attack at will. To them it's an everyday occurance during an election year but like I said even believing that everything contained in the political ads is false and or a lie one might be surprised to find that there is truth in it as well on both sides.
"What is even more distrubing is that people for the most part buy into negative campaign advertising - truthful or not..."
What I find even more disturbing is that people buy into their own bias, negative political ads or not. When they don't like someone they just plain don't like them. Nothing the politician does will ever be right and nothing will ever change their mind about how they see him or her. We all do it too. Kind of like harry and "Why the rush to war?" thing. I've never considered 12-15 years and 18 UN resolutions as a "rush to war." But the flipside would be if Gore had won, and let's pretend that he would have lifted a finger to do something, the current opposition would sing a completely different tune whether they would admit it or not and those of us on the pro side would be on the defensive. And that's the way the cookie crumbles in an election year.
Karen,
Before you back up too much on your stance you need to read further into the "factcheck" site information. You might notice some very intresting things. I will leave it to you to find because I wouldn't want to sway your thinking in anyway.
Jana Lewis,
Cool site but is this where our military bought their gear? I want what they have. These look like standard issue Kevlar just like the police and military have been wearing for years. In fact the material components are the same as what a police buddy of mine had 8 years ago. They work well but are these what the military are using now? I couldn't find anything regarding that on the site.
Take care folks and don't get too stressed over this political season. It happened last time and the time before that and the time before that and so on and so forth. ;)
Darris C.
Never fear darling Darris-I am not backing up. I think Kerry is a pig and that his vote (along with everybody else who voted against that "package") was a jumbo mistake. I tend not to believe political ads regardless of the side they come from, after all they are trying to win and if you know anything about California and governor's elections (even before a Rebublican candidate was named-back when Gray killed Riordan's chances with slimy ads) it can get very ugly out here. But, I do try to at least hear the other side out while debating here on the old 'board and I will be respectful of people like Harry and Steve who share information in a friendly way :bbg:
Interestingly enough, Shanbaum posted something awhile back that I totally agreed with but the thread was closed before I could remark on this phenomenon. The reason I mention this is because I think sometimes each side gets lumped into a stereotype. (What's the name of the guy who wrote the book called "Reason" that calls us radcons??) and then we all start to duke it out along party lines and it can get a little hot in here :angry: I am not sure what I am trying to say here-chalk it up to not enough sleep and too much allergy medication-but I am not backing up, just being friendly! I have a brother in law who thinks rich people don't pay taxes (he is very confused) and I have learned that if I keep it friendly I sometimes get my point across. Although I fear he will remain a socialist-he likes to call it something else but..
Let the refining and improving of your own life keep you so busy that you have little time to criticize others. -H. Jackson Brown Jr.
If the only tool you have is a hammer you will approach every problem as though it were a nail
I'm pretty sure there are laws that protect politicians from lawsuits emanating from their lying (in the name of 'free speech' of course) but I could be wrong. Feel free to show otherwise. Nonetheleass there is a definite difference between what is possible and what what will never happen.
Agreed. No matter who we are, some bias is unavoidable. What can make a difference is if we can recognize that bias and can still apply critical thought processes to the negative ads. Frankly I think these negative political ads degrade the process and us. However as I said we can't really fault the politicians for this. They are only doing what works. If we rewarded politicians for candor and honesty, then we'd probably get more of that kind of behaviour. ;)
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
Easy to say if you know the difference between truth and fiction. Easier said than done.If we rewarded politicians for candor and honesty, then we'd probably get more of that kind of behaviour. ;)
I agree as far as the FCC and FEC is concerned you are right. They protect political advertising as free speach. The accountability issue falls on a civil suit issue under equal access to law. It's a case by case situation and must be pursued by the individuals themselves not the FCC or FEC. These cases can also be filed in federal court if the individual feels so inclined but typically nothing would come of it in that venue, would take entirely to long and would play out on its own long before the courts ever get to the case. But there are instances where it has been done on the civil level http://www.fec.gov/press/press2004/20040422murs.html of course this is more direct mail but was still part of a political ad campaign. This page http://www.fec.gov/ has all kinds of cases regarding what the FEC will go after them for but for the most part it's the individual candidates responsibility to persue a case against another for slander or defamation not the federal commisions.
Emphasis on "What can make a difference is if we can recognize that bias and can still apply critical thought processes to the negative ads." This is the primary problem when it comes to those ads, many people don't and won't recognize their own bias and agree with one and not with the other.
"Frankly I think these negative political ads degrade the process and us."
Degrade the process? Perhaps if one relys on these for a large part of their decision making which many do. Degrade us? Depends on what "us" you're referring to. I've seen two political ads total since I watch very little TV. I watch CSI, CSI Miami, The Shield, South Park and (if I get the chance) Fox and Friends in the morning (and the occasional PB&J Otter with the daughter) and that's about it. What I read is information based so advertising is rarely if ever enlisted. If I want to know what Kerry's voting record is I go to Kerry's voting record, if I want to know if Bush did or did not serve in the National Guard then I go look for that information specifically (which I don't because it's moot).
I rely on my political platform beliefs, common sense and information to determine who I want in office not what some political ad tells me, I would hope that others would do the same. That is not to say I have no bias. It pains me to know end to vote for a Democrat or third party but if their record shows they stick to their guns regardless of political winds and vote for issues in a manner that follows the platform that I support then I vote for them. Rob Junell and Devin Bates are two Democrats (one state, one local) that I've voted for. I would vote for Zell Miller if given the chance and I would even consider Joseph Lieberman (but not over Bush) and believe that the Democrats made a BIG mistake not backing him at all costs.
I especially don't use "scandals" to determine my position on a candiate either. Too "Soap Opera-esque" a mentality in my opinion. When they break the law or do something inherently wrong then I have a problem with them but things like the Iraqi prisoner abuses...? Silly. Very silly indeed. Hold those responsible accountable. This scenario is like blaming your car because the water hose sprung a leak. To each his or her own I guess.
"Never fear darling Darris-I am not backing up."
I never thought you would BUT do read through the links (it won't take many pages at all) and you will probably see what I see. It's done very well but it's there nonetheless.
"I have a brother in law who thinks rich people don't pay taxes (he is very confused) and I have learned that if I keep it friendly I sometimes get my point across."
Just zip him these then: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.htm l http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls
This should hep your brother-in-law a little if he will even read it but again there lay the problem for some. They don't want to believe it so they don't regardless of what's right under their noses.
Take care folks,
Darris C.
I find the factcheck site very interesting and even handed, they trash both sides! I assume you are referencing the ties to PBS as "interesting things"? (There's that insidious bias again!) While PBS does lean left, I think the case with the Annenberg group is that frankly there would be no interest from the commercial broadcasting arena in this content. I have a passing familiarity with it and it's pretty dry stuff.
Walter A was a very close friend of Richard Nixon, BTW. I believe he served as ambassador under him but I could be wrong.
PS So how is your wife doing now that she's OTJ nursing?
It's the bias that has kept you from seeing it. I won't give out the secret and will let anyone that wants to try to find it. If they have a strong bias they will never notice it, if they have a modicum of bias they will notice it pretty quickly.
PBS? One of my favorite pieces for support of the connection between Al-Queda and Iraq is from PBS not to mention (and I don't get a chance to watch it anymore but...) The New Yankee Workshop is awesome and Norm Abrams is to woodworking what Einstein is to science. ;)
"While PBS does lean left, I think the case with the Annenberg group is that frankly there would be no interest from the commercial broadcasting arena in this content."
Way left actually. Bashing both sides isn't even at issue here and yes they do this. I'm not even gonna give out any hints on this one. Those that get it will and those that don't won't. It's that comprehension thing again I'm afraid.
Take care,
Darris "Guilty by omission" C.
No no no. The best thing on PBS is Mystery--Helen Mirren is back, praise the Lord!!!
And you keep your secret. As I used to tell my kids when they would say "I know something you don't know"--invariably some ratting on one of the other kids: "well then, if you tell me you won't!" (With 5 kids you figure out ways to simplify pretty quickly--my late husband used to tell the babysitter, don't call us unless there is at least a cup of blood. The sitter thought he was kidding, he wasn't!)
Ciao baby.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks