****************************************
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: It shouldn't be called "Political Advertising", but instead "Political Propaganda". Now THAT'S Truth in Advertising!
I was just reading an article in Time Magazine (August 20, 2012, page 4 "A dark take on the 2012 election"). In it, the Huffington Post was lamenting the $2,000,000,000 (that's right - $2 Billion) that would be spent on the 2012 Presidential Election, once all is said and done. Readers writing to the Times "Inbox" complained about how the campaigns were definitely "not informative". In the long history of America, as far as I can tell, Political Campaigns have NEVER been intended to be informative - they are intended to GET VOTES, with a fair amount of character assassination thrown in.
Wow - where to begin? Who amongst us decides who to vote for based on the "Political Propaganda"? Are we that ill-informed that such Propaganda is our best source of information on where the candidates stand on issues, and indeed, even understanding the issues? Even with the vast resources of the internet at our fingertips?
SUGGESTION: Ignore the political Propaganda, and instead do some research and find out BOTH:
1) what the candidates put out as policy proposals, and
2) what they have ACTUALLY DONE (and not just said),
with a HEAVY EMPHASIS on 2).
Educate thyself, and don't fall for the political advertising that is really "Political Propaganda". Should the Citizens of the United States do that, all the "Political Propaganda" spending in the world won't change our minds on the issues in front of us. The Yo-Yo's at the Huffington Post should be goading their readers into educating themselves on political issues, rather than their resorting to the absurd hand-wringing.
On the same page of the Time Magazine, the readers write in about how saddened they are by the many jobs that could have been created with that $2,000,000,000 that is instead being spent by Obama and Romney. Right. Because government TARP spending of an unknown amount ($800,000,000,000? That's $800 Billion. $3,000,000,000,000? That's $3 Trillion) created so many new jobs?
Note: after doing a little research, its impossible for a non-insider like me to add up how much the federal government spent on the bailouts, but this New York Times link gives us a fair idea.
What the Time magazine readers don't really understand is that SPENDING ON ADVERTISING (think Google or Facebook, whose primary revenue source is advertising, as two rather large examples) does indeed create jobs. Bet Google and Facebook employ a few folks. Ask ANYONE IN ADVERTISING how many jobs $2,000,000,000 in spending on Ads (TV, Print, Radio, Cable, Internet, etc.) creates. I would be willing to bet that it creates more jobs per $$$ spent than the bailout did.
Use your brains, people! Don't be Zombie Propaganda Puppets!
