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:
Post a Comment