English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

...I think the news media should get lots of the blame. If the media reported things objectively, without bias, and told the truth about candidates, and left their personal agendas out of it, there would be no need for extravagant, overly expensive campaign blitzes.

2006-10-28 18:16:41 · 7 answers · asked by carson123 6 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

7 answers

One of the reasons that campaigns are so expensive is that we, the voting public, are disinterested in politics too much of the time. We would rather watch 'Survivor' or 'American Idol' than watch a solid news programs like, for example, Newshour with Jim Lehrer on PBS. In depth news coverage, as opposed to sensationalist crap with a "if-it-bleeds-it-leads" motto and emotional hyperbole and partisanship rather than straight factual reporting, is considered boring by most people who want to be entertained more than they want to be informed.

We want to read 'People' magazine or some clone there of and find out about whether Angelina Jolie has adopted some impoverished child or Jennifer Anniston has gotten a boob job instead of knowing the costs and benefits of a publicly funded health care system.

It seems that the real enemy of democracy is not the communist totalitarian states nor even the repressive religious oligarchies but rather the indifference of the voters who would rather know meaningless tripe about people who are often famous for no reason (Paris Hilton) instead of being informed about the issues which actually affect their lives.

Another case of "we have met the enemy, and he is us".

To overcome our indifference candidates must almost scream at us to get any recognition. So they pay exhorbitant advertising costs to get their name in front of your face or, at least, to get you to be disgusted enough with their opponent to consider voting against them.

The greatest defence against a totalitarian government, in a democratic nation, is not an armed populace but an informed one.

Sadly, while we have wrung our hands over Oprah's cause of the week and Dr. Phil's ten cent psychoanalysis the autocrats have taken over the government, given the store away to the wealthy who paid for their obscenely expensive campaigns, sent the children of the poor off to fight in a meaningless and unwinnable war and shelved programs that could actually benefit people (medicare) as too expensive while lavishing tax cuts on people who have too much already and spending like a drunken sailor on military expenses.

Someday America will look back on all they had and all they lost and realize, too late perhaps, that they let it slip away while distracting themselves with pretty pictures.

2006-10-28 18:39:12 · answer #1 · answered by Rory McRandall 3 · 0 0

It's not the cost of the campaign so much as advertising and marketing. The campaign itself wouldn't cost more than your average cross country family vacation.

2006-10-29 01:22:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I agree, and once we're in Nirvana we will all live in peace.

But, back in reality, money = votes. I know it is a bit cynical, but it is true.

The up side is that all the money moving around is good for the economy.

2006-10-29 01:22:11 · answer #3 · answered by ML 5 · 0 0

I dont know, because less and less americans are voting and we're all just ignorant of the truth anyways, so why does it even matter?

2006-10-29 01:22:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Greed.

2006-10-29 01:19:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It takes money to broadcast all them lies about the other candidate.

2006-10-29 01:36:44 · answer #6 · answered by Daddy Big Dawg 5 · 0 0

inflation? :D

2006-10-29 01:19:26 · answer #7 · answered by keoni_21 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers