Ending the attack ads

The Green Party today has unleashed its own attack on attack ads. It's smart timing -- after the Toronto municipal elections and today's midterms in the U.S., I suspect a lot of people would agree that we should detoxify political debate.

Here's a quote from  leader Elizabeth May in the  press release:

"The control of television ad content is not possible, but it is possible to regulate the way elections are waged. The 2008 election had more vicious attack ads than 2006, and 2006 was worse than 2004. We are on a very dangerous trajectory, as it is well understood in public opinion research that attack ads 'work' by reducing voter turn-out. Those who use attack ads have the goal of reducing voter turn-out. It is a deliberate strategy of their campaigns," said May.

Personally, I'd like to see, at a bare minimum, political-party adherence to the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards. If there's anyone out there who can tell me why political advertising is exempt from the same standards that apply to the private sector, I'd be most curious to hear.

Comments

[Jim M]

Attack ad sponsors probably feel free not to adhere to any kind of minimum standards for the same reason or reasons that the sponsors of false and misleading religious advertising and marketing apparently feel free to disseminate false and misleading religious advertising and marketing.

No one TRIES to stop them.

[Chris Holcroft]

Agree completely - great that you are raising this!