13 ms·

A Modest Proposal

23 points by martian 18y ago

rflrob 18y ago
What about some sort of rating of ads by an external, independent body (something like FactCheck.org). When you go to a movie, they make an announcement: "the following movie has been rated {(P)G(-13), R} by the MPAA". Why not do the same with FactCheck: "The following ad has been rated..." You could make this entirely voluntary, but add in incentives to do so, like discounted air-time rates.
DanielBMarkham 18y ago
What a wonderful idea. Why didn't anybody think of that in the 200+ years of publishing? Perhaps because it's specious? In the article the author mentions "Swift Boat" -- I think this is an excellent example of the problem. The Swift Boat ads were seen mainly by one party as being fallacious. To use a recent example, when candidate A says Candidate B voted for sex education for Kintergartners, Candidate B replies it was age-appropriate. Then Candidate A shows the exact wording of the bill, which calls for a discussion of the transmission vectors for HIV. Everybody can pile on to me about how my examples suck, but you're just reinforcing the point: there is no universal truth squad that could un-tangle all of this rhetoric. That's what you, the voter are supposed to be doing. Stop looking to somebody else to do one of the few things you have a duty to do in a democracy. Sorry for the rant. The article just struck me as a great example of the great gap between what passes as common sense and what would actually work.
- mixmax 18y ago
  I'll tell you what would actually work: Education. The problem with American politics is that everyone has a vote, not that this is bad of course, but since the average American is so poorly educated he is easier to trick with talking points, fancy rhetoric and downright lies. As a consequence of this any politician that wants to stand a chance of winning must adress the people in simple language and with simple messages - even if they're stretching the truth or are outright lies. Lowest common denominator. I come from a country with an excellent education system, which means that the lowest common denominator is much higher, and thus politicians can start talking about the issues, and still appeal to the broad masses. A candidate that lied would instantly be held accountable by the press and by the people.
  - dangoldin 18y ago
    Thanks for voicing my thoughts! The problem is that there is an incentive for the politicans in power to keep people stupid. It makes them easier to control and manipulate. But, I see you are from Denmark so at the same time it seems that it is easier to have a higher level of education for a more homogenous population.
    - noonespecial 18y ago
      Politicians need people to be sick, uneducated, and poor. This way they can promise to fix those three things forever, never really intending to actually deliver, but always having a "platform". Politicians simply have nothing to offer people who are wealthy, educated, and in good health.
      - huherto 18y ago
        They can offer not to screw up the economy.
  - jonas_b 18y ago
    I agree that education is vital to improve democracy, but I think you're making an unfair comparisson, comparing Denmark to the US. It'd be more relevant to compare the US to the European Union. How many Danish people hold the European Parlaiment accountable, or the Commission, or the Council, or the lobbyists in Brussels, or god knows what. My suggestions is more subsidiarity. There isn't really a reason for the US President to handle healthcare or education when the states can do it (which most of them already do). Thus, if there's less to do for the president, the people would only have to hold him accountable on a smaller budget, on fewer issues. Something that's considerably easier than the gigantic thing they have to administrate right now.
  - omouse 18y ago
    You know what else could work? Having to enlist in the military to earn your full citizenship and voting rights. If you had to go through a year or two of intense physical and mental pressure, you would value your vote a hell of a lot more. (Starship Troopers ftw)
- timr 18y ago
  How very post-modern of you -- there's no truth, so let's not try to enforce it. Problem is, most of the recent distortions have been blatant, and easy to verify. Case in point -- the Obama sex-education bill that you cite. The exact wording of the bill in question was: "Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered IN ANY OF grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV." (emphasis mine) In other words, it's not mandating sex education for kindergarteners -- it's saying that any sex education that they do receive must have a certain curriculum. It also says that: "All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate." In other words: if you're trying to suggest that it's actually impossible to determine the truthfulness of a charge, this example is terrible. It's an obvious, blatant distortion of the truth by the Republican campaign, and it can't be justified. Any reasonable, intelligent person can see that fact. If, however, you're suggesting that political parties would cry like babies if held to a higher standard of debate, I can't dispute your assertion. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. If we can hold drug manufacturers to objective standards for truth in advertising, there's no fundamental reason that we can't do the same thing for political advertising.
  - hugh 18y ago
    Here's a good guideline: in order to avoid looking like you're advocating for one particular candidate in these sorts of discussions, it's best to always use two examples: one which makes one party look bad, and another which makes the other party look bad. So if you're going to talk about an example of dishonesty on the part of the McCain campaign, you should follow it up immediately by an example of dishonesty on the part of the Obama campaign. That way, everybody stays happy, and it stops things from degenerating into political arguments.
    - MaysonL 18y ago
      The trouble is - the vast majority of the dishonest and dishonorable lies are coming from one side. Obama isn't deliberately lying - McCain and company are. Repeatedly. After the lies have been exposed. On national TV.
- hugh 18y ago
  To put it another way, the "lies" you hear in a political campaign (at least in official statements) are almost never genuine lies. Instead, you get a lot of exaggerations, things taken out of context, strictly-true things phrased misleadingly, minor points overemphasised, major points glossed over, weasel words, ambiguous phrasings and "well that depends on your interpretation"s. Of course all of these will be called "lies" by the opposing party, but they're not really. A sensible politician will never say anything provably false -- everything he/she says will have a back door that he/she can slip out of if it's challenged.
Jem 18y ago
Link should be http://www.zeldman.com/2008/09/15/a-modest-proposal/ http://www.zeldman.com/2008/09/15/a-modest-proposal/ ?
mynameishere 18y ago
It's always weird to come across articles with pat titles ("Modest Proposal" = something outrageous, said with a straight face; viz, satire) but that doesn't fit the mold. No, I think he's actually being serious about regulating ads based on truth. In fact, when a politician is caught in a good lie ("Read my lips", "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman...") it's golden for the enemy. There's no real incentive to keep the other guy honest.
- eru 18y ago
  You know where the title came from?
  - dill_day 18y ago
    For anyone who doesn't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal Had to read this in high school, I liked it
  - martian 18y ago
    Jonathan Swift: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080.txt http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080.txt
bsaunder 18y ago
"... if America’s networks remember they are Americans first, revenue seekers second." Unfortunately, they revenue seekers first. They are accountable to their shareholders (American or not). It's the politicians themselves that should be looking out for citizens first (not themselves or corporations). That is their job. Unfortunately they seem to have forgotten that in the last couple of decades.
- andreyf 18y ago
  Unfortunately they seem to have forgotten that in the last couple of decades. The problem is not with them, the problem is that the ones who remember don't get elected.
natch 18y ago
He suggests steep fines. Those funds better be escrowed before the ad is placed, or it won't work. A much better stick would be a throttling of access to that medium for the perpetrator. The problem is hit-and-run attacks from allied but autonomous entities that melt into thin air (as with Swift Boat and Al Queda), leaving no assets and nothing to lose. How about punishing not just the people who placed the ad, but the side which benefited from their unfair use of the media? The best solution would be an informed electorate that pays attention to reality, but that's just a nice dream in a country where 70% or more believe in a fairy-God.
signa11 18y ago
!HN
dazzawazza 18y ago
A less modest but more useful angle might be to free America's media from the control of the elite. More critical analysis would flourish, more Americans could make a critical decision and maybe the planet would be a better place. We are lucky in the UK as we are all taxed to pay for the BBC. Americans can also watch BBC America if they chose.
- anamax 18y ago
  The BBC isn't a media "control[ed] by an elite"?
  - hugh 18y ago
    Even more so than any commercial network. The BBC is a law unto itself, beholden neither to the government of the day nor to the viewers. They produce the programs they feel like producing, and only hire people who think like themselves. Now this has some good points, and the BBC actually winds up producing some very good television, but it's definitely the "elite telling you what to watch" model.
    - eru 18y ago
      Same in Germany. Except the intertwining with the political parties may be even higher.
edw519 18y ago
Warning: The Surgeon General has determined that political advertising can be hazardous to your health. Why not just remove all political ads from mass media, just like cigarettes? Save a billion dollars. People will figure out who to vote for just like they figure out which brand to smoke.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  I'm pretty sure the networks are actually required to run a certain amount of political ads. I believe the justifying rhetoric goes something like "if you're using public airwaves, then you have to do public service". While I like your idea, the law supports the exact opposite.
- hugh 18y ago
  Would we also be able to stop yard signs and bumper stickers? Because they also annoy me. There is, of course, this pesky thing called "Freedom of speech".
  - Retric 18y ago
    You can say what you want but they can limit when and where you can say it: wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones I say ban all political ads or ban wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones but am not willing to live with both at the same time.
icey 18y ago
A) Ewwww, politics B) The problem with this idea is that advertisements are rarely factually incorrect. Far more often the attack ads are merely insinuations, or far out interpretations of actual fact. These are arguably more dangerous than outright fallacy, because there is something to back them up. C) Even if this sort of legislation were to come to pass, nothing would change. Just because you can't lie doesn't mean you'll start talking about things that the average Joe Schmoe voter doesn't care about, like economic policy, national defense, trade relations, etc... The average voter takes the position of the party he affiliates with. If you don't believe me, look at how well McCain did when he was actually running a clean campaign and did things like just talk about the issues.
pg 18y ago
Is it actually illegal to make false claims in a radio or tv ad?
- BrandonM 18y ago
  I always was under the impression that it opened up the advertiser to civil suits for false advertisement, but I have never heard anything saying that it was illegal. Of course, I have no expertise on the matter.

23 points by martian 18y ago

What about some sort of rating of ads by an external, independent body (something like FactCheck.org). When you go to a movie, they make an announcement: "the following movie has been rated {(P)G(-13), R} by the MPAA". Why not do the same with FactCheck: "The following ad has been rated..." You could make this entirely voluntary, but add in incentives to do so, like discounted air-time rates.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

What a wonderful idea. Why didn't anybody think of that in the 200+ years of publishing? Perhaps because it's specious? In the article the author mentions "Swift Boat" -- I think this is an excellent example of the problem. The Swift Boat ads were seen mainly by one party as being fallacious. To use a recent example, when candidate A says Candidate B voted for sex education for Kintergartners, Candidate B replies it was age-appropriate. Then Candidate A shows the exact wording of the bill, which calls for a discussion of the transmission vectors for HIV. Everybody can pile on to me about how my examples suck, but you're just reinforcing the point: there is no universal truth squad that could un-tangle all of this rhetoric. That's what you, the voter are supposed to be doing. Stop looking to somebody else to do one of the few things you have a duty to do in a democracy. Sorry for the rant. The article just struck me as a great example of the great gap between what passes as common sense and what would actually work.

mixmax 18y ago
I'll tell you what would actually work: Education. The problem with American politics is that everyone has a vote, not that this is bad of course, but since the average American is so poorly educated he is easier to trick with talking points, fancy rhetoric and downright lies. As a consequence of this any politician that wants to stand a chance of winning must adress the people in simple language and with simple messages - even if they're stretching the truth or are outright lies. Lowest common denominator. I come from a country with an excellent education system, which means that the lowest common denominator is much higher, and thus politicians can start talking about the issues, and still appeal to the broad masses. A candidate that lied would instantly be held accountable by the press and by the people.
- dangoldin 18y ago
  Thanks for voicing my thoughts! The problem is that there is an incentive for the politicans in power to keep people stupid. It makes them easier to control and manipulate. But, I see you are from Denmark so at the same time it seems that it is easier to have a higher level of education for a more homogenous population.
  - noonespecial 18y ago
    Politicians need people to be sick, uneducated, and poor. This way they can promise to fix those three things forever, never really intending to actually deliver, but always having a "platform". Politicians simply have nothing to offer people who are wealthy, educated, and in good health.
    - huherto 18y ago
      They can offer not to screw up the economy.
- jonas_b 18y ago
  I agree that education is vital to improve democracy, but I think you're making an unfair comparisson, comparing Denmark to the US. It'd be more relevant to compare the US to the European Union. How many Danish people hold the European Parlaiment accountable, or the Commission, or the Council, or the lobbyists in Brussels, or god knows what. My suggestions is more subsidiarity. There isn't really a reason for the US President to handle healthcare or education when the states can do it (which most of them already do). Thus, if there's less to do for the president, the people would only have to hold him accountable on a smaller budget, on fewer issues. Something that's considerably easier than the gigantic thing they have to administrate right now.
- omouse 18y ago
  You know what else could work? Having to enlist in the military to earn your full citizenship and voting rights. If you had to go through a year or two of intense physical and mental pressure, you would value your vote a hell of a lot more. (Starship Troopers ftw)
timr 18y ago
How very post-modern of you -- there's no truth, so let's not try to enforce it. Problem is, most of the recent distortions have been blatant, and easy to verify. Case in point -- the Obama sex-education bill that you cite. The exact wording of the bill in question was: "Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered IN ANY OF grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV." (emphasis mine) In other words, it's not mandating sex education for kindergarteners -- it's saying that any sex education that they do receive must have a certain curriculum. It also says that: "All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate." In other words: if you're trying to suggest that it's actually impossible to determine the truthfulness of a charge, this example is terrible. It's an obvious, blatant distortion of the truth by the Republican campaign, and it can't be justified. Any reasonable, intelligent person can see that fact. If, however, you're suggesting that political parties would cry like babies if held to a higher standard of debate, I can't dispute your assertion. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. If we can hold drug manufacturers to objective standards for truth in advertising, there's no fundamental reason that we can't do the same thing for political advertising.
- hugh 18y ago
  Here's a good guideline: in order to avoid looking like you're advocating for one particular candidate in these sorts of discussions, it's best to always use two examples: one which makes one party look bad, and another which makes the other party look bad. So if you're going to talk about an example of dishonesty on the part of the McCain campaign, you should follow it up immediately by an example of dishonesty on the part of the Obama campaign. That way, everybody stays happy, and it stops things from degenerating into political arguments.
  - MaysonL 18y ago
    The trouble is - the vast majority of the dishonest and dishonorable lies are coming from one side. Obama isn't deliberately lying - McCain and company are. Repeatedly. After the lies have been exposed. On national TV.
hugh 18y ago
To put it another way, the "lies" you hear in a political campaign (at least in official statements) are almost never genuine lies. Instead, you get a lot of exaggerations, things taken out of context, strictly-true things phrased misleadingly, minor points overemphasised, major points glossed over, weasel words, ambiguous phrasings and "well that depends on your interpretation"s. Of course all of these will be called "lies" by the opposing party, but they're not really. A sensible politician will never say anything provably false -- everything he/she says will have a back door that he/she can slip out of if it's challenged.

Jem 18y ago

Link should be http://www.zeldman.com/2008/09/15/a-modest-proposal/ http://www.zeldman.com/2008/09/15/a-modest-proposal/ ?

mynameishere 18y ago

It's always weird to come across articles with pat titles ("Modest Proposal" = something outrageous, said with a straight face; viz, satire) but that doesn't fit the mold. No, I think he's actually being serious about regulating ads based on truth. In fact, when a politician is caught in a good lie ("Read my lips", "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman...") it's golden for the enemy. There's no real incentive to keep the other guy honest.

eru 18y ago
You know where the title came from?
- dill_day 18y ago
  For anyone who doesn't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal Had to read this in high school, I liked it
- martian 18y ago
  Jonathan Swift: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080.txt http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080.txt

bsaunder 18y ago

"... if America’s networks remember they are Americans first, revenue seekers second." Unfortunately, they revenue seekers first. They are accountable to their shareholders (American or not). It's the politicians themselves that should be looking out for citizens first (not themselves or corporations). That is their job. Unfortunately they seem to have forgotten that in the last couple of decades.

andreyf 18y ago
Unfortunately they seem to have forgotten that in the last couple of decades. The problem is not with them, the problem is that the ones who remember don't get elected.

natch 18y ago

He suggests steep fines. Those funds better be escrowed before the ad is placed, or it won't work. A much better stick would be a throttling of access to that medium for the perpetrator. The problem is hit-and-run attacks from allied but autonomous entities that melt into thin air (as with Swift Boat and Al Queda), leaving no assets and nothing to lose. How about punishing not just the people who placed the ad, but the side which benefited from their unfair use of the media? The best solution would be an informed electorate that pays attention to reality, but that's just a nice dream in a country where 70% or more believe in a fairy-God.

signa11 18y ago

!HN

dazzawazza 18y ago

A less modest but more useful angle might be to free America's media from the control of the elite. More critical analysis would flourish, more Americans could make a critical decision and maybe the planet would be a better place. We are lucky in the UK as we are all taxed to pay for the BBC. Americans can also watch BBC America if they chose.

anamax 18y ago
The BBC isn't a media "control[ed] by an elite"?
- hugh 18y ago
  Even more so than any commercial network. The BBC is a law unto itself, beholden neither to the government of the day nor to the viewers. They produce the programs they feel like producing, and only hire people who think like themselves. Now this has some good points, and the BBC actually winds up producing some very good television, but it's definitely the "elite telling you what to watch" model.
  - eru 18y ago
    Same in Germany. Except the intertwining with the political parties may be even higher.

edw519 18y ago

Warning: The Surgeon General has determined that political advertising can be hazardous to your health. Why not just remove all political ads from mass media, just like cigarettes? Save a billion dollars. People will figure out who to vote for just like they figure out which brand to smoke.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
Prrometheus 18y ago
I'm pretty sure the networks are actually required to run a certain amount of political ads. I believe the justifying rhetoric goes something like "if you're using public airwaves, then you have to do public service". While I like your idea, the law supports the exact opposite.
hugh 18y ago
Would we also be able to stop yard signs and bumper stickers? Because they also annoy me. There is, of course, this pesky thing called "Freedom of speech".
- Retric 18y ago
  You can say what you want but they can limit when and where you can say it: wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones I say ban all political ads or ban wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones but am not willing to live with both at the same time.

icey 18y ago

A) Ewwww, politics B) The problem with this idea is that advertisements are rarely factually incorrect. Far more often the attack ads are merely insinuations, or far out interpretations of actual fact. These are arguably more dangerous than outright fallacy, because there is something to back them up. C) Even if this sort of legislation were to come to pass, nothing would change. Just because you can't lie doesn't mean you'll start talking about things that the average Joe Schmoe voter doesn't care about, like economic policy, national defense, trade relations, etc... The average voter takes the position of the party he affiliates with. If you don't believe me, look at how well McCain did when he was actually running a clean campaign and did things like just talk about the issues.

pg 18y ago

Is it actually illegal to make false claims in a radio or tv ad?

BrandonM 18y ago
I always was under the impression that it opened up the advertiser to civil suits for false advertisement, but I have never heard anything saying that it was illegal. Of course, I have no expertise on the matter.