Political ads-where's the FCC?

[Ray9]

Former FCC head, Newton Minnow’s, critique of television and its propensity to lower the intelligence of the nation fell on deaf ears in 1961. But as a presidential election approaches, now may be a good time to revisit Minnow’s warning. As viewers prepare for a tsunami of political ads targeted not at the frontal cortex but aimed to irritate, energize and increase blood flow to the lizard part of the brain, they should call for a major change in the commercial appeal for votes.

Politicians on all sides of the political spectrum are acutely aware of the intrusive, ubiquitous impact of television advertising. If someone knocked on our door every ten minutes carping about their political opposition destroying the world, we would probably call the police. It’s not free speech, it’s an invasion of privacy pushing into personal space when we are watching something else. Look at the miserable viewership numbers regarding political debates; no one watches them because they opt not to.

Attempts to ban the ads will fail as badly as Prohibition, but there is a way for the FCC to regulate them that could work. The FCC should step in and require all political advertising to be relegated to special political channels like C-Span. That way if viewers want to see ridiculous depictions of cruel people pushing the elderly over a cliff in a wheelchair they could “choose” to do so.

The FCC is there for a reason and it played a crucial role in removing tobacco advertising from television. For some reason the FCC has been silent on blatantly partisan television journalism masquerading as objective news reporting. The regulatory agency should examine this and make a determination for a possible remedy.

The combined effect of bad television journalism with the great flood of political advertising every four years degenerate’s television’s purpose as a bringer of unbiased information into to a massive dispenser of propaganda for whatever holds the power of persuasion at a given time.

Television is a powerful tool, but it is being misused and that is why the FCC should step in and provide relief to the people who are tired of political ads shoved down their throats every time there is a major election. Choice is everything in a democracy and the people should exercise that choice by demanding the FCC intervene and regulate political advertising by sequestering them from regular network programming.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Former FCC head, Newton Minnow’s, critique of television and its propensity to lower the intelligence of the nation fell on deaf ears in 1961. But as a presidential election approaches, now may be a good time to revisit Minnow’s warning. As viewers prepare for a tsunami of political ads targeted not at the frontal cortex but aimed to irritate, energize and increase blood flow to the lizard part of the brain, they should call for a major change in the commercial appeal for votes.

Politicians on all sides of the political spectrum are acutely aware of the intrusive, ubiquitous impact of television advertising. If someone knocked on our door every ten minutes carping about their political opposition destroying the world, we would probably call the police. It’s not free speech, it’s an invasion of privacy pushing into personal space when we are watching something else. Look at the miserable viewership numbers regarding political debates; no one watches them because they opt not to.

Attempts to ban the ads will fail as badly as Prohibition, but there is a way for the FCC to regulate them that could work. The FCC should step in and require all political advertising to be relegated to special political channels like C-Span. That way if viewers want to see ridiculous depictions of cruel people pushing the elderly over a cliff in a wheelchair they could “choose” to do so.

The FCC is there for a reason and it played a crucial role in removing tobacco advertising from television. For some reason the FCC has been silent on blatantly partisan television journalism masquerading as objective news reporting. The regulatory agency should examine this and make a determination for a possible remedy.

The combined effect of bad television journalism with the great flood of political advertising every four years degenerate’s television’s purpose as a bringer of unbiased information into to a massive dispenser of propaganda for whatever holds the power of persuasion at a given time.

Television is a powerful tool, but it is being misused and that is why the FCC should step in and provide relief to the people who are tired of political ads shoved down their throats every time there is a major election. Choice is everything in a democracy and the people should exercise that choice by demanding the FCC intervene and regulate political advertising by sequestering them from regular network programming.

Obviously you're unaware of Citizens United.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

Former FCC head, Newton Minnow’s, critique of television and its propensity to lower the intelligence of the nation fell on deaf ears in 1961. But as a presidential election approaches, now may be a good time to revisit Minnow’s warning. As viewers prepare for a tsunami of political ads targeted not at the frontal cortex but aimed to irritate, energize and increase blood flow to the lizard part of the brain, they should call for a major change in the commercial appeal for votes.

Politicians on all sides of the political spectrum are acutely aware of the intrusive, ubiquitous impact of television advertising. If someone knocked on our door every ten minutes carping about their political opposition destroying the world, we would probably call the police. It’s not free speech, it’s an invasion of privacy pushing into personal space when we are watching something else. Look at the miserable viewership numbers regarding political debates; no one watches them because they opt not to.

Attempts to ban the ads will fail as badly as Prohibition, but there is a way for the FCC to regulate them that could work. The FCC should step in and require all political advertising to be relegated to special political channels like C-Span. That way if viewers want to see ridiculous depictions of cruel people pushing the elderly over a cliff in a wheelchair they could “choose” to do so.

The FCC is there for a reason and it played a crucial role in removing tobacco advertising from television. For some reason the FCC has been silent on blatantly partisan television journalism masquerading as objective news reporting. The regulatory agency should examine this and make a determination for a possible remedy.

The combined effect of bad television journalism with the great flood of political advertising every four years degenerate’s television’s purpose as a bringer of unbiased information into to a massive dispenser of propaganda for whatever holds the power of persuasion at a given time.

Television is a powerful tool, but it is being misused and that is why the FCC should step in and provide relief to the people who are tired of political ads shoved down their throats every time there is a major election. Choice is everything in a democracy and the people should exercise that choice by demanding the FCC intervene and regulate political advertising by sequestering them from regular network programming.

We deregulated the FCC under the Clinton administration. And then concentrated corporate wealth bought up everything and monopolized it.

It's up to the individual now, stop cooperating with and participating in things you know are rigged.

 

[BluesLegend]

Former FCC head, Newton Minnow’s, critique of television and its propensity to lower the intelligence of the nation fell on deaf ears in 1961. But as a presidential election approaches, now may be a good time to revisit Minnow’s warning. As viewers prepare for a tsunami of political ads targeted not at the frontal cortex but aimed to irritate, energize and increase blood flow to the lizard part of the brain, they should call for a major change in the commercial appeal for votes.

Politicians on all sides of the political spectrum are acutely aware of the intrusive, ubiquitous impact of television advertising. If someone knocked on our door every ten minutes carping about their political opposition destroying the world, we would probably call the police. It’s not free speech, it’s an invasion of privacy pushing into personal space when we are watching something else. Look at the miserable viewership numbers regarding political debates; no one watches them because they opt not to.

Attempts to ban the ads will fail as badly as Prohibition, but there is a way for the FCC to regulate them that could work. The FCC should step in and require all political advertising to be relegated to special political channels like C-Span. That way if viewers want to see ridiculous depictions of cruel people pushing the elderly over a cliff in a wheelchair they could “choose” to do so.

The FCC is there for a reason and it played a crucial role in removing tobacco advertising from television. For some reason the FCC has been silent on blatantly partisan television journalism masquerading as objective news reporting. The regulatory agency should examine this and make a determination for a possible remedy.

The combined effect of bad television journalism with the great flood of political advertising every four years degenerate’s television’s purpose as a bringer of unbiased information into to a massive dispenser of propaganda for whatever holds the power of persuasion at a given time.

Television is a powerful tool, but it is being misused and that is why the FCC should step in and provide relief to the people who are tired of political ads shoved down their throats every time there is a major election. Choice is everything in a democracy and the people should exercise that choice by demanding the FCC intervene and regulate political advertising by sequestering them from regular network programming.

We deregulated the FCC under the Clinton administration. And then concentrated corporate wealth bought up everything and monopolized it.

It's up to the individual now, stop cooperating with and participating in things you know are rigged.

You realize average Americans have trillions of dollars invested in corporations right.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

Former FCC head, Newton Minnow’s, critique of television and its propensity to lower the intelligence of the nation fell on deaf ears in 1961. But as a presidential election approaches, now may be a good time to revisit Minnow’s warning. As viewers prepare for a tsunami of political ads targeted not at the frontal cortex but aimed to irritate, energize and increase blood flow to the lizard part of the brain, they should call for a major change in the commercial appeal for votes.

Politicians on all sides of the political spectrum are acutely aware of the intrusive, ubiquitous impact of television advertising. If someone knocked on our door every ten minutes carping about their political opposition destroying the world, we would probably call the police. It’s not free speech, it’s an invasion of privacy pushing into personal space when we are watching something else. Look at the miserable viewership numbers regarding political debates; no one watches them because they opt not to.

Attempts to ban the ads will fail as badly as Prohibition, but there is a way for the FCC to regulate them that could work. The FCC should step in and require all political advertising to be relegated to special political channels like C-Span. That way if viewers want to see ridiculous depictions of cruel people pushing the elderly over a cliff in a wheelchair they could “choose” to do so.

The FCC is there for a reason and it played a crucial role in removing tobacco advertising from television. For some reason the FCC has been silent on blatantly partisan television journalism masquerading as objective news reporting. The regulatory agency should examine this and make a determination for a possible remedy.

The combined effect of bad television journalism with the great flood of political advertising every four years degenerate’s television’s purpose as a bringer of unbiased information into to a massive dispenser of propaganda for whatever holds the power of persuasion at a given time.

Television is a powerful tool, but it is being misused and that is why the FCC should step in and provide relief to the people who are tired of political ads shoved down their throats every time there is a major election. Choice is everything in a democracy and the people should exercise that choice by demanding the FCC intervene and regulate political advertising by sequestering them from regular network programming.

We deregulated the FCC under the Clinton administration. And then concentrated corporate wealth bought up everything and monopolized it.

It's up to the individual now, stop cooperating with and participating in things you know are rigged.

You realize average Americans have trillions of dollars invested in corporations right.

You realize that was a scam to get the working class to give up pensions right?

America's 1% hasn't had this much wealth since just before ...
America’s 1% hasn’t had this much wealth since just before the Great Depression
Feb 24, 2019A new study puts wealth inequality in a historical and, perhaps, worrying perspective.
America's Wealth Inequality Is At Roaring Twenties Levels
America's Wealth Inequality Is At Roaring Twenties Levels
Feb 28, 2019To summarize, America's growing wealth inequality is not the fault of capitalism, but of central bank market intervention, which goes against the very principles of capitalism.
Wealth Inequality Growing in the U.S.: Study | Fortune
The 400 Richest Americans Own a Greater Share of Wealth Than the Bottom 150 Million
A new study found that the 400 richest Americans own more wealth than the bottom 150 million, a sign of growing inequality. In a sign of growing wealth inequality, according to a new study. You ...
America's Humongous Wealth Gap Is Widening Further
America's Humongous Wealth Gap Is Widening Further
May 29, 2019The top 1%'s share of national wealth jumped to 32% last year from 23% in 1989. In 2018, the richest 10% held 70% of total household wealth, up from 60% in 1989.
America's wealth gap is bigger than ever - CNNMoney
America's wealth gap is bigger than ever
Nov 3, 2017America's wealth gap is getting even bigger. Here's another way of understanding it: The Top 1% now holds 38.6% of the nation's wealth, up from 33.7% in 2007. The bottom 90% now holds only 22.8% of the nation's total wealth, down from 28.5% in 2007. There are also differences within those income brackets.
America Is the Richest, and Most Unequal, Nation | Fortune
America Is the Richest, and Most Unequal, Nation
A new report finds America is the richest country, but has the biggest wealth inequality.

​

Wealth inequality in the United States
Wealth inequality in the United States is the unequal distribution of assets among residents of the United States. Wealth includes the values of homes, automobiles, personal valuables, businesses, savings, and investments. The net worth of U.S.Wikipedia

 

[Ray9]

No one owns anything anymore, they just go into debt for it and spend lifetimes paying interest on it. Even a house with a paid off mortgage can be taken by the state for unpaid property taxes. Of course that only applies to the shrinking middle class. The political control authority of the US has almost unlimited funding from corporate lobbies.

Congress has been very busy for decades eliminating company pensions and decent employee health insurance so they can manipulate entry into global markets where foreign corporations laugh out loud at pensions, medical coverage and environmental responsibility.

You never hear about real issues in these political ads; you just get absurd distractions like melting ice caps and rich people not paying enough taxes. That's because politicians are owned by lobbies. Fine, get them off my TV.

 

[Preacher]

I know I am damn tired of seeing that clown Steyer's ads all over tv. I mute it every time it comes on.

 

[occupied]

Haven't you heard? Money is speech we are entitled to as much speech as we can afford. Didn't have to be that way.