We know a
lot of out of state PAC is buying lots of ads in Wisconsin. Some of them seem
cookie cutter types; same format just insert the person you’re against with
appropriate data. And, much of the information is true, except that they way it
is presented makes more of a lie than a truth.
Some
examples: Walker claims in his ad that Wisconsin has added thousands of job
under his administration. That is true for the first part of this year, but if
you look at jobs since he took office there has been a net loss of 14,200 jobs
making the state dead last of all the states.
Falk
claims jobs grew at 11.3% during her 14 years; true. But the population growth
was 21% therefore unemployment increased.
A Walker
ad states that under Mayor Barnett Milwaukee has the worst job creation of any
big city; true. What is not said is that Milwaukee rated 40th in unemployment
of the 50 largest cities in 2010 but during his tenure Milwaukee’s unemployment
rate went up less than the national average.
A Walker
ad says that Falk raised property taxes every year, an 80% increase. That is
true of tax revenues but not of tax rates.
A Walker
ad says under Barnett has one of the worst graduation rates in the
country. True in 2008 when Milwaukee’s
graduation rate was 42nd of 50 large districts. But during his term
graduation rate improved greatly during his term.
Walker
claims he wiped out a $3.6 billion deficit. But he uses two ways of determining
figures: true if you use a cash accounting method but if you use the more
accepted Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) there is s 3 billion
deficit during those years.
Walker
claimed he balanced the budget without raising taxes. True but his budget
included reduction to two tax credits which he does not consider tax increases
but the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau does.
For a
fuller look at this see http://factcheck.org/2012/04/the-whole-truth-in-wisconsin-air-wars/
The upshot
of all this is we voters just don’t trust the information we receive in
political ads and for good reason. And this is just as true in other states besides Wisconsin.
I would think that the Badger folk, whether pro or con Walker, would know by now exactly what his intentions are, who provides the funding, who will benefit and who will get hurt....no matter what his ads say. But, I wonder if the
ReplyDeleteBadger folk know that just 17% of his financial support comes from Wisconsin?
Political advertising is expensive lying for the most part. The introduction of unlimited superPAC money will make the spread of disinformation much more thorough and comprehensive, and better able to drown out actual news and coverage of actual facts, which was the goal.
ReplyDeleteIt's expensive, but be careful about labelling political opinion you don't happen to agree with as "lying".
DeleteThe introduction of unlimited superPAC money makes the spread of information (note I do not use the subjective value judgement "misinformation") easier, of course. As it does increase free expression/speech. And that is always a good thing.
"better able to drown out actual news and coverage of actual facts, which was the goal."
Hate to break it to you, but the "actual news" and "actual facts" are no more and no less "misinformation" than the campaign ads you mention. The news organizations just hide it better. In any case, there is absolutely no danger of 'drowning out', as the number and diversity of news and media organizations only keeps growing.
I know you are big of free speech. But in the case of political ads this "free" speech cost money, of which the PACs have an abundance. Thus the richer are the freer in your thinking. Sounds like doublespeak to me.
DeleteA lie is when you tell something that is untrue. The examples abound in political ads.
Broadcast news does have a bias especially since Roone Aldridge took control of ABC news and said it will no longer be a loss leader but a profit making enterprise; so now news is sold to us. But to compare their bias with ads is understating the differences a lot.
A current survey just reported that the media does more negative reporting of Obama than positive; which is in conflict with the cries from the right that the media is liberal biased.