Over at Gauntlet.ca today, there is a great post about "attack" ads, and the perception of them.
I'm with him. While there is all this crap in the public domain about "the high road", and "attack" ads or "dirty politics", in reality they work. They also get the idea behind the ad into the public mind.
Sure, if they're over the top personal attacks, then they are "dirty", but something that attacks policy in a truthful way - is really clean... attack ad, or not. I think the crappy (and getting crappier) media in this country does every voter a disservice by just dubbing everything an "attack ad" with the ominous undertones. They need to make a distinction behind the content of the ad.
When a party "attacks" someone on their lies, or failure to keep promises, that should be considered akin to "investigative journalism" (considering the mainstream media has ceased to do anything that can be construed as "investigative journalism"). If we cast disparaging remarks at the way he/she smiles, or talks, or looks, or their social or ethnic background - or imply that in any way - that should be looked down upon. If someone is attacked with lies or false information (such as the Conservatives' ads against Dion), then they should be taken to task for it...
The media in this country (which seems to be getting more and more "tabloidically" American every day) has to do a better job at clarifying the difference between good ads and bad ads. Maybe a daily news story that outlines the "truthiness" of party ads and party lines...?
Like I've indicated before, we need stronger controls over media ownership in this country - especially foreign media ownership...
No comments:
Post a Comment