Running for Your Life: Warning Labels in Politics

We have warning labels on cigarettes, vaping gizmos, where hot coffee is served in cafés. These things will be harmful to your health.

We tell buyers of packaged goods what’s in them. Are they gluten-free? How many calories? Is that “natural” product, well, made from whole foods? Or loaded with preservatives and sugar? We care about what we consume.

I’ve encountered few arguments across the political spectrum that these kinds of regulations are unnecessary. Indeed, they’ve become “normalized,” as the kids like to say. We expect to be informed, in minute detail, about the stuff we eat and drink.

Okay, so let’s take this example and apply it to what we consume in political advertising. If we are serious about keeping our democracy healthy, as in, insuring that when a vast majority supports basic rights, like, access to reasonably priced health care, good, fully funded schools for our children, assault weapons off the streets, then we should pay to regulate political advertising, using a nonpartisan government agency that issues warning labels on political advertising.

Soon, we are going to be bombarded like never before by political advertising. Untold millions will be spent through “dark money” channels in order to attempt to shape public opinion.

And, yet, there is no way of assigning a “democracy health” grade to the message. It’s not the place here to detail how the warning classifications would work, although fact-checking of the message(s) would be involved, and similarly, a label that assigns a tag like “rhetoric” or “bombast” could be entertained. Say  a message contains 5 percent fact, 80 percent rhetoric and 15 percent bombast would be one way to go.

You get the idea. No matter what, something needs to be done. And a nonpartisan regulatory agency to try to get to the truth in political advertising would be the place to start.

Next: Running for Your Life: Kind Approaches to Humanity? Really?






0 comments: