Aren't TV Ads The Reason Presidential Politics Has Gotten So Expensive?

[stopbush]

If candidates are spending the bulk of their campaign $ on TV ads, what does that tell you?

Doesn't it tell you that the TV networks have the most to gain financially from the obscene amount of $ being spent? Since Reagan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine - coupled with Citizens United - TV networks can now adopt a "pay to play" policy. If you can't afford air time to run ads, you're shit out of luck. The other guy is going to win.

Which begs the question: how can any TV network claim to have any objectivity covering politics when they are raking in the $ from politics? And yet the corrupting influence of $ in politics never seems to get discussed when talk turns to the TV networks, who are gorging at the teat of unbridled campaign spending.

[hobbit709]

1. I wonder how much goes to consultants.

[GreatGazoo]

2. There are many big expenses: GOTV, polling, logistics, direct mail, FaceBook ads, advertorials,

plane charters, fund raising, focus groups, consultants, soft money and schwag.

TV has no monopoly on campaign dollars. The owners of the major networks are well-known and are not required to be unbiased or hide their preferences. Some hide their preferences to increase their effectiveness. TV has increasingly limited reach and those watching TV have very little trust in it.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/176042/trust-mass-media-returns-time-low.aspx


The best effect per dollar comes from separating your opponent from their natural base (for example separating HRC from women, Obama from POC, JEB from conservatives). Which is why you see so much negative advertising -- it works. People have very little trust in anything so it is easier to get people to vote against something rather than for someone.

[CTyankee]

3. wouldn't we all be better off if our campaign seasons were shorter?

Why do we have to have all this stuff so far in advance of the election? We can still discuss issues and we should. Maybe we should go back to having the parties operate without all these primaries.

[GreatGazoo]

5. I like, in theory at least, the Canadian system where you vote for a platform rather than a person

In the US we get a lot of focus group BS and shoot-from-hip lines about stuff that a President doesn't have the authority to do for example change the Constitution, keep/ban abortion, etc.

I'd rather have a choice of policies that will be advanced rather than giving a semi blank check to anyone.

[tech3149]

4. There is no simple answer to a complex problem

But I would say that media is definitely influenced by the income from political advertising. They do not and will not bite the hand that feeds them.
The most corrosive effect is that most people fail to understand how their perception of the word is influenced by the media they consume. Billions of dollars a year go into the science of manipulating the public to sell them everything from toothpaste to ideas and we are for the most part oblivious to that influence.
Other commenters have brought up other significant uses for political spending, and they are important, but I see the media as being the most important thing that needs to be changed.
I don't know if it's in any way possible but my route to change would be mandatory free advertising for political candidates. I would hold the broadcast license hostage.
Any broadcaster that failed to provide equal time to all candidates could have their license challenged.
As it is, they must provide advertising at reduced rates for the campaign but "independent" advertisers must pay full rate. Citizens United just upped the ante.
My constant advice to those less politically involved is to consider the business model of those presenting the world to them. If the motive is profit you can rest assured that there is no incentive to present actual facts. If they can grab eyes and ears with fancy graphics, pretty presenters, and sensational stories, who gives a fuck about facts and truth?
My other advice is to consider the source. My primary sources for information I can rely on are presented by the written word. I don't have any scientific evidence to support my theory but I feel that the written word is the best way to consume information. You not only need to use more of your brain to interpret the words and their meaning but you have the luxury to go back and re-read anything that doesn't seem to make sense or question how the choice of words was meant to influence your perception.
My sources are mostly independent and reader supported. Some are part of the commercial media domain but it is painfully evident that they will not venture into areas that could challenge the powers that be.

[Snobblevitch]

7. Broadcasters must still provide equal time

to candidates for a federal office. They cannot sell advertising to one candidate and not another.

[Initech]

6. TV ads are the reason everything is so expensive anymore.

Could it be said that industry is what's responsible for most of society's ills?