The host of presidential contenders is overwhelming, as is the drivel that historically surrounds much of their ad campaigns. The anticipation of the sheer shameful dross that is the upcoming onslaught called presidential political advertising is enough to make most folks not only roll their eyes, but grind their teeth. Come Election Day, we're all going to need some really good orthodontists.
Sadder yet, is the fact that one single candidate can spend more to finance an election try than a Third World country's total gross annual product.
According to Nielsen data released yesterday by The New York Times, Mitt Romney is way ahead of his Democratic and Republican rivals in ad spending. So far this year, Romney placed 10,893 political ads, mostly in Iowa.
No other Republicans came close. Rudy Giuliani has run 642 spots, on radio only. John McCain and Fred Thompson only began running ads last month. McCain in New Hampshire and Thompson on national cable.
On the Democratic side, Bill Richardson placed 5,975 ads, more than any of his rivals. Barack Obama placed 4,293, and Hillary Clinton about half that.
Clinton’s campaign Web site, hillaryclinton.com, has attracted the most visitors, 759,000 so far. Obama’s site is close behind, with 749,000 visitors. Nielsen also reported that 71 percent of all the ads were placed in Iowa, and nearly 95 percent of them ran on local television.
Stay tuned for the gory details. Film at 11.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Aloha!
There is a tremendously amount of shame that money that can be used for the good of the nation be used to fund popularity of a potential President.
There are 2 social evils that come from it:
1. The money donated by lobbyist groups often come with strings attached and therefore by voting for a particular candidate, you are not only advancing his/her power but you are also giving more power to the ones who have contributed to his/her campaign.
Political Advertising in this instance creates the illusion that a candidate can be potrayed as more votable based on nothing more than popularity. Popular does not equal suitable.
2. Traditional media is coming to an end as candidates take advantage of new media without accountability. Also candidates do not have to argue about equal airtime. Obama girl's popularity could be the invention of the Obama campaign office but plausible deniability fuels more than 3.1 million views on YouTube.
Is there something wrong with the political atmosphere or with deceitful advertising? Should one vote with the "heart" or the mind? Suffice to say, the answer lies in one's self-interest over-riding society's best interest. Just wait and see...
Thanks for your input, Robyn. Good stuff.
Post a Comment