4 ms·
> They can spend that, and only that. They get a set amount of time on all TV stations. That’s naive. Media is owned by a few folks. There’s nothing to stop Mu
by lemonspat 6y ago
> They can spend that, and only that. They get a set amount of time on all TV stations.
That’s naive. Media is owned by a few folks. There’s nothing to stop Murdoch from broadcasting/publishing the names of only the person that Murdoch wants to win. And you’ll never hear about the little Green Party lady that YOU want to win, and you can’t donate to help her out.
You can cap TV time for funded spots, but the talking heads on radio and TV will just keep mentioning how great Candidate Y is.
- arcticbull 6y ago> That’s naive. Media is owned by a few folks. There’s nothing to stop Murdoch from broadcasting/publishing the names of only the person that Murdoch wants to win. And you’ll never hear about the little Green Party lady that YOU want to win, and you can’t donate to help her out. Yes, there is, make it illegal. > You can cap TV time for funded spots, but the talking heads on radio and TV will just keep mentioning how great Candidate Y is. I'm sure after the FCC issues the first few fines they'll settle right down. At the end of the day, all of these roadblocks can be bowled over, its just a matter of how much you want it.
- alexfromapex 6y agoThis is getting meta because the media being owned by a few folks is a monopoly/antitrust problem created in large part by lobbying. Our legislators should not have let all of the media companies in the country be owned by like 15 organizations.