Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

In future elections should UNTRUTHFUL ADS be penalized?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 04:28 PM
Original message
In future elections should UNTRUTHFUL ADS be penalized?
should there be an independent non-partisan watchdog panel that reviews TV, internet, newspaper ads that go out from presidential/VP candidates?

If they knew there would be hefty fines they wouldn't put this defamatory stuff in the ads?

What should the penalty be? Should be enough to break the campaign? Would the independent panel be flawed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. Something needs to be done.
It seems the truth is stretched beyond the breaking point, and no one is helf accountable for what they say in advertisements. If they were, McSame would have been so heavily fined at this point, there'd be no money left to run ads!

It's disgraceful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eltentwelve Donating Member (8 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
17. they should.
They should. Why not focus the campaigns inward?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourguide Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. I would love it but the damn republicans dont even follow the LAW,
do you really think they are going to give a shit about some watchdog panel?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I guess the panel would have to have very large teeth!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
3. All they have to do is remove the exemption for Political adds from the libel/slander laws
When someone runs lies about you sue their asses off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. if that's the case then they need to start with this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. First they have to remove the exception then the suits can follow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
taterguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
5. Get back to me after you've read the opinion in Sullivan v NY Times
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
24. I think that *news* should be looked at like any other product.
There should be an implied warranty of merchantability, just like there is with anything else that's bought and sold.

Whenever they intentionally deceive, they should have financial liability exposure to their customers who may be harmed by the fraud.

It always seems to be the intentional propaganda that is the most harmful. Repeating stories that they KNOW are false.

In the case of war crimes, there are some additional responsibilities for the media which are expressed under the Nuremberg Principles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
6. of course not
What would we do? Elect the panel? Then what about their campaigns to get onto the panel? Or should we appoint the panel? Who does the appointing?

We once had an independent non-partisan watchdog - the press. Let's restore that. That means breaking the stranglehold corporations have over the media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
7. Yes, by voters. Other than that, no thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
8. No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
9. I'm not for another government agency, but yes, we need something....maybe paid for by TV networks !
Which will not allow the airing of ads BEFOREHAND, unless they are 100% truthful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. You trust TV networks to do that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. they get their millions of ad money - do they care?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
14. Who would both sides trust with such a thing?
Edited on Fri Oct-17-08 06:28 PM by LittleClarkie
Who would be the arbiter?

Bad idea I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kajsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
15. Yes!
Hold them accountable for the 'truth in advertising' law the ads must adhere to.

Same rules, same consequences for violating the law
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishwax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
16. No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
18. Our elections need LOTS of reform
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quakerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
19. No
Not unless you can find a truly independent arbiter. One who will be available for so long as the nation requires this service.

The problem with making such a powerfully agency is that repugs gravitate towards powerful positions like fungus to feet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShadowLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
20. You'd need a constitutional amendment to do that, since lying to the public = free speech rights
It's free speech for the candidates running to be able to lie to the public.

Supposibly according to something I read on factcheck.org, as long as the ads are 'believed' to be truthful by the candidate paying for them it's not illegal to lie in ads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. what if people believe they are defamatory?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
21. Truthiness is a funny thing...it's really hard to regulate...
who decides and how far does the distortion have to go to become a lie?

We let juries decide these things in libel and slander suits but public figures have a very high burden of proof to win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
22. PENALTY = TRUTH FLAGS on each ad with a leader stating how many and the ad keeps running.
SO an example

The Bi-Partisan fact check revealed 5 inaccuracies in the following ad and the actual facts will be run at the end of the ad and charged to the offending parties at the same rate per minute as the ad, Senator McCain who approved the message and the RNC who manufactured the inaccuracies from whole cloth.


Ad - Barrack pals around with Ayers


Facts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
23. yeah, we could call it the Ministry of Truth
Minitrue for short.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. yes
now where have I heard that name!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kswheels Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 10:37 PM
Response to Original message
25. No and they can't be anyway.
First of all, define truth.
Second of all, candidates have freedom of speech and expression.
Third, an extension of my point above, I don't want truth defined by who is in power at the moment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-17-08 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. generating garbage
if the information is defamatory (ersonal) then it shouldn't be freedom of speech and expression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC