zlacker

Does CNN, Fox News, ABC, New York Times and CBS use money to endorse candidates on air? Is that advertising?

>>econ40+(OP)
Who would think it's not advertising?

>>ericjm+D
So these news networks would be banned too?

>>econ40+21
The networks themselves wouldn't be banned, but they wouldn't be permitted to endorse or give airtime to a candidate in exchange for money, I'd assume is the idea.

>>Ukv+J2
They're not endorsing candidates in exchange for money. They do use their money to run their networks, which they use to promote certain candidates and positions.

Re: "The line is clear: is money being exchanged in order to promote a product? That's advertising."

>>econ40+a3
They’re endorsing candidates to sell more newspapers or more airtime for advertisers. How is that not “in exchange for money”?

>>econ40+(OP)
Candidate endorsements (and political advertising in general) are core political speech. You can't outlaw it in the US.

>>Henchm+48
What if they are running the story on local ocean tides or soup kitchens? They are doing this to sell more newspapers or more airtime for advertisers.. does this mean there is an "exchange for money" under your rule?

>>tptace+Nl
Are candidate endorsements by corporations (e.g CNN) allowed? That sounds like something that should be banned.

>>theamk+hp
Well, I'd argue that all stories don't fulfill the same purpose, and that such a small story doesn't have enough importance to the broader public for there to be an "exchange for money" of the type I've described.

But also, it seems pretty clear that political stories specifically generate massive cash flow for media, through clicks and "online engagement", the spectacle of debates, video of gaffes, and so on. I'd assume that is why the political "season" lasts longer and longer? The politicians certainly take advantage of this and use it to their ends. The media seem not to care as long as they continue to get "paid", in their way, and have access.

This is a disgusting arrangement, IMO.

>>espere+Uu
Of course they’re “allowed”. Congress shall make no law…

The New York Times Company can say anything they want about anything, and especially political candidates.

>>Henchm+8B
It is not clear to me that in general, political stories generate more cash flow vs things like sports or celebrities.

I am sure that's the case _today_ , with all the crazy politics going on, but if you ask me average over 2 years? I am not sure at all.

>>Ukv+J2
What if the candidates did it for free? Aren't they already, because the networks are platforming them? Wouldn't the mere fact of showing a candidate be an endorsement in itself?

>>espere+Uu
Sure, corporations get free speech protections too. Journalists even moreso.

And while I'm inclined to believe not everyone should have free speech, I'm also aware that denying it is authoritarian.