who get a break for advertising rates. 393

dpjmadbco

In this pivotal election year, fellow citizens, I supply you with a chilling vision of 2 Americas.
One America would be the swing states, the dozens or so states that don't get into the Democratic or Republican camps and can ultimately decide the presidential election. Those unhappy states they are fully aware who they are are already being flooded with noisy political promoting, day and night. One media talking to firm, Borrell Associates, forecasts that political advertising this year can approach $10 billion nationwide, a huge increase from the roughly $7 billion dollars spent in 2008.
If those people numbers look suspiciously round, the reason being they're just guesses. Nobody knows how much money will be spent because a lot of the spending is coming from a completely new source, the "independent committees" that can boost money in unlimited amounts plus, in many cases, can keep their donors anonymous.
Political advertising, and also spending on political advertising, just isn't inherently bad. Just request the owners of those television programs, who have seen their enterprises get a nice shot inside the arm.
And even negative um das Team zu unterstützen  09 governmental ads the ones with ominous music, accusing candidates connected with mismanaging the economy or switch flopping or being unprepared to manage a crisis aren't inherently poor.
Scholars who study these materials say that negative ads in many cases are more informative and even more correct than positive ads, in part because they get more scrutiny. Each time a candidate tells you he's preventing for America's families and also working for better schools, who can prove him wrong? But if he calls his foe a felon or worse a position outsourcer, he knows he'd better give some evidence.
"Negative ads could be good because they generate a discussion," argues John G. Geer, a political science lecturer at Vanderbilt University who watches ads so you don't have to. "It's demanding between competing messages, as well as voters have to adjudicate their accuracy. But that is what campaigns are about.In
This year, though, voters in the swing action states are likely to have a tougher time adjudicating the accuracy of the marketing and advertising they see. First, because there's going to be so much around Kl 55 of it. And secondly, because so much of it will derive from those anonymous independent committees in addition to their commercials tend to be less careful about the facts. "And when they're mysterious as well, we've already witnessed this year that those ads have got a higher level of deception.In .
So far, the new groups together with anonymous donors are completely Republican, and they have big plans. The Crossroads organization founded by previous George W. Bushaide Karl Rove says them expects to raise $300 million; tavoitteet neuvottelu Johtajana  17 a further, funded partly by the old-fashioned Koch brothers, promises $400 million.
However that doesn't mean Democrats have unilaterally disarmed: Your "super PAC" supporting President Obama says it hopes to raise $100 million.
What's more, it doesn't mean that the GOP will have a monopoly on deceptive advertising. About an Obama ad that had taken aim at Bain Capital, the investment firm Romney once ran, your website concluded: "Some of the claims from the ads are untrue, yet others are thinly supported.Inches A Romney ad asking yourself Obama's loans and awards to the solar industry, which ce qui une personnalité énorme quil avait include companies run by Democratic donors, "strains facts to make its point" and "twisted" the words of the Energy Department's examiner general, the group found.
Exactly what do voters do about these ads? The first step is to watch these people, whether you're in a swing point out or not. Many are available on Metacafe or on the sites of watchdog groups.
The third measure, Jamieson says, is that if you think an advertisement is deceptive, you can question a television station manager for taking it off the air until this has been fixed. Stations are required to function commercials from candidates along with, but not commercials from independent groups.
The problem is that television stations like the millions of dollars in sales revenue they're collecting for these advertising, and they can charge a higher charge to and the case was soon adjourned until Jan 8 872 independent committees than to people, who get a break with advertising rates.
"The stations will not make money on the candidates,In Jamieson noted. "They make it from third party groups."
I don't know exactly how you're spending your weekend, although I'm devoting mine so that you can watching a bunch of these commercials. Next week, to celebrate my column's move from Thursday to Thursday, I'll unveil my choices of the season's best along with worst ads so far.
  
   http://conventions.magicmagazine.com/search/node/
  
   http://k7happy.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=24932&fromuid=54828
  
   http://ubacs.com.ar/osqa/preguntas/2103816/the-warren-grove-couple-is-now-675-291
  
   http://www.kamfaiwongs.com/shownews.asp?id=46
  
   http://cgi.www5f.biglobe.ne.jp/~maihani/apeboard_plus3.cgi/