Why Isn't The Media Ever Taken To Task For Airing Negative Political Ads?

[stopbush]

They all wring their hands over the super pacs $ and the flood of negative ads, but the fact is that the media is raking in the money airing these ads. They set the rates, and as available air time in key markets gets tight, I'm sure the price goes up. The super pacs are only raising hundreds of millions of dollars to run ads because that's what the media is charging.

Here's an idea: how about the media establishing some standards? Like, how about they refuse to run an ad until and unless the people producing the ad can prove that everything in their ad is factual? How about the media develop fact check departments that look at each and every ad presented and make sure that any "facts" appearing in those ads are being honestly represented and not spun by the producers? How about any ad that fails to meet such criteria isn't allowed on the air to begin with?

It's not like we have a media that is entirely free to air anything it wants without consequence (see: Janet Jackson's boob). If the media were to establish a few standards, the people producing the political ads would get into line and be forced to do something beyond what they do now.

[RB TexLa]

1. What is wrong with negative political ads? They work.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Which media corp giant is going to do that censorship fairly?

[Roselma]

3. Who owns the media?

The media is vested first in making money. An offshoot of that is accepting advertisements from anybody willing to pay them. Plus, I would argue that the media isn't actually liberal anyway and that media owners relish the opportunity to run negative political advertisements if those advertisements also support their own political viewpoints. It is like being paid to do what you want.

Integrity and media are unrelated concepts.

[gulliver]

4. Airing them is fine. Not debunking them is the problem.

It seems fine to me for the media to air everything. I'm fine with the other side airing lies and bitterness all the time. They are digging their own grave.

My problem is that media news organizations don't debunk negative ads. They are not doing their duty to the public, and it looks like they have sold their souls. News organizations don't debunk lies that are bringing in ad revenue.

You have to sympathize with their ethical weakness here to some extent. Everyone has mouths to feed. It is a shame though.

[fredamae]

5. There seems only One way

to "take MSM to task"-Shut the TeeVee Machines Off!

What will they do when we Reject (viewership fails big time) their BS?

[Blue_Tires]

6. 1. they need the $$$$

2. by law if they sell ad time for candidate A's negative ads, they must do the same for candidate B's...And that's not even counting the pseudo-grassroots "issues" ads

[exboyfil]

7. They are also obligated to offer their very

lowest rate I think.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Wouldn't it be more democratic to for the people to repeal the 1st Amendment

rather than expecting the media to do that for them?