We start a movement for a new law ... prohibiting candidates from making negative remarks/comments concerning his/her opponent . Their campaign ads will only contain positive comments about themselves. Tell us what they are against/for and how they stand on issues & how they would correct these issues if they see a need. BTW ... Have ya noticed ... in the TV ads, they no longer display the party affiliation symbol ? No Repub or Dem logo, no Donkey or Elephant . Wonder why that is ? Are they hoping to confuse ? Hoping to bring an end to the two party system ?
I don't know if I agree with that proposal as I think you should be allowed to point out real flaws in your opponent's record, but I believe political campaigns should fall under the slander and libel laws, and that should be quickly and strongly enforced. You should only be allowed to voice TRUE flaws in your opponents character or record and state election commissions in each state should at least force retractions if statements are blatantly false.
They stop putting up party affiliation because today it does not favor the Dems. They'll change back when the winds shift.
I like your idea but the problem with instituting such a move is that it negates a candidate’s 1st amendment rights. I too would like a see a straight up and above board campaign from the candidates but since I demand my right to freedom of speech, I can hardly deny someone else theirs.
They [the media] could & would easily block it if, say a candidate started promoting, speaking in favor of the KKK . Would they not ? Facebook & twitter for example have 'rules' on what can & cannot be said on their platforms. Don't know why that can't be done on TV ads. The do not permit the "F"-bomb. Or the "N" word.
Somehow the line between ethics and morality have been played with by the media to such a degree that one can’t know the wrong nor right of what politicians [or anyone else] says and does. What is moral to one side isn’t ethical to the other and visa versa and to tell the truth, I do not believe either side knows the difference between the two. That said, morality and ethics aren’t an inclusive issue with the Constitution in that it doesn’t specify what is morally or ethically right or wrong when it comes to speech or the written word so it’s up to whomever owns the platform to decide that issue and up to the public to decide if we wish to listen to or read it. Note: The owners of public platforms are constantly being sued because of their ability to censor whatever content they wish. To that end, also note that in the past, owners of some of the media have edited out certain parts of a political speech that clarifies other parts of a speech to make the politician look bad but they get away with it because…..they own the platform.
*****************************************History professor Robert S. McElvaine recently wrote an op-ed piece for the Los Angeles Times in which he stated that journalists are "failing Americans" by insisting on treating both political parties equally. McElvaine claimed that the United States is in “the final stages of the most critical election for the survival of the American experiment since 1864," and added that journalists bear responsibility for protecting America’s future from "right-wing" extremists. ***************************************** Story here