I wanted to jot down a couple thoughts regarding the new media policy from KSL, which is "taking a stand for civility in political advertising."
"What we'd like to do is try to help candidates focus on what they stand for rather than tear down their opponent," Willes said (Deseret Media Companies CEO).
Okay. Who can argue with that?
Essentially, what they are trying to do is come up with some kind of "truth test" according to the statement. I think they will have a hard time really blocking any ads because most ads (if not all) are based in some form of the truth. I would challenge anyone to produce an example of an out and out lying political ad. Show me one without some element of truth to it.
When I worked on the Cannon campaign we were often frustrated by what we felt were "lies" about the Congressman's record for example. The reality is what our opponent(s) were saying were not necessarily lies but elements of the truth somewhat twisted or taken out of context to further advance their arguments. Were our opponents out and out lying? No. They weren't. My experience is that most candidates are able to justify what they are saying to some degree or another.
When candidates challenge their opponents directly some think that is negative. I believe it is important to allow candidates to directly and frankly point out their differences. But let them be fair and honest in outlining their differences. Let them not conveniently ignore certain unflattering facts. Let them confront them honestly and directly. We deserve it.
What we really need is not civility in politics but intellectual honesty. What most people would call "negative" ads are generally not personal attacks, but distorted elements of the truth. The line between that and a lie is admittedly thin. What our political speech needs is less rehtoric and more honest examination of the facts in full context. The challenge becomes the ability to fully flesh out an issue in a 20 second radio spot or direct mail post card.
My advice if the media is really trying to clean up campaigns (should that even be their role?) is to challenge candidates more openly, loudly, in your face, on the out and out exaggerations, twisting facts, out of context comments, and yes, be intellectually honest themselves void of agenda. You know, honest journalism. If KSL is going to block an ad let them do it publically not by preventing it's airing in the first place but challenging it so loudly the candidate will be forced to defend and here's that word again - justify it.
So what do I really think about KLS's new policy? Its misguided and naive. In the end it will have little if any effect on campaigns in Utah.
Update 9/15/2010: For a current real life example take a look at the sausage grinder's blog regarding Morgan Philpot's claim that Matheson has only passed two bills. How quickly each camp gets into the minutia. Also take a look at the comments - they just prove my point and are what inspired this update.
