THE MEDIA IS SUPPOSED to remain objective, right? Can the New York Times be taken seriously when their daily e-mail newsletters contain partisan advertisements, like the one above? Don't they look like they are supporting Barack Obama for president?
Political campaigns bring a lot of money to the media. The John McCain and Obama campaigns have already dropped $27 million for broadcast advertising in Pennsylvania this season, and we are really only hitting the stride now.
Should the media - who have been harshly criticized by the Republican party during the current campaign - abstain from taking money from political parties?
16 comments:
Yes they should abstain. By accepting money for the advertisement it's like they are taking a bride and therefore can no longer be expected to be trusted.
-Mia Cammisa
Are you saying that journalists can't take brides! Awesome. Anyone married cannot be trusted? I hear you.
- George (the teacher who suggests proofreading your comments before you hit "publish.")
I think that an ad like this one is alright if obama went to the nytimes to buy an ad. If the times offered the ad to obama it would be a sign that theyre clearly democratic supporters. I'm sure the nytimes would have sold a similar ad to John McCain if he wanted it.
I don't think the media should not take money, but journalists in general shouldn't. If a corporate structure like the Times wants to take money to put advertisements on, they should do it for both parties. If they get some advertising from one side they should seek the other sides' 'advertisement rebuttal' if you will.
I agree with mattfitz's comment about whether or not it was NY Times' idea to put an ad for Obama's book. If it was their idea then I believe that it is crossing the line of abstaining political views. However, if Obama approached them wiling to pay for that space, then I find that to be fair. Even in class we talk about how the industry is struggling. Why not advertise a candidate's book for money? Benefits the industry. Although, to be honest, I highly doubt the NY Times would ever put an advertisement, even if he did pay, for a McCain book on their website.
They should do what A&E had to do to Fred Thompson when he was running for the Republican nominee. Thompson's Law and Order re-runs were taken off the air until he dropped out of the race for the nomination. Advertising for Obama's book can resume after this election is over.
Hell yes we should abstain from taking money from them! If you can't accept a sandwich from a Phillie's game, you shouldn't take money from presidential candidates. There can be no bias in something that has this much riding on it.
yes.. they should abstain from taking money. It is part of journalism ethics. this whole thing kind of reminds me of the idea of pandering and how we should accept gifts. If a publication did accept money from a certain political party then it would show they are bias. From then on, I would always have in the back of my mind the idea of journalism being objective and they are not.
But they aren't exactly TAKING money for nothing.
The politicians are BUYING ad space.
Does that change things?
Do you care where the money comes from as long as it funds your media outlet? Have you noticed that the sports pages of the Daily News and Inquirer are full of ads for strip clubs and massage parlors? Is that wrong? Captain Morgan runs ads during the evening news. Should you reject their money since they are promoting drinking? I refuse to watch baseball f Viagra continues sponsoring the game. It just feels wrong.
Again ... do you care where the money comes from?
- George (the teacher who will actually watch baseball regardless of who sponsors the games)
If they buy it thatn its there space to use. New papers are a business and Political money spends just as well as any other money.
Ohhhh... this one is soooo sticky! On one hand, it seems as the they are supporting the Obama campaign. On the other hand, if they paid for advertising, why can't they publish it. Heck, they would do it for other companies. I would be interested to see if they really JACKED up the cost of this ad to them though????
Nikki Allen J1111
I think it's fine. Obama's campaign is paying for the ad space. McCain could do the same. Although the media overall has been massively, rather disgustingly, biased towards Obama, I don't see that in this case.
As far as other advertising, all those places have the right to pay for that space and advertise. I can choose to not respond to their ads. Except if it's really, really offensive, I don't mind the media being funded by things I wouldn't necessarily support.
~Summer Beckley
I understand that the campaign is paying for the space but honestly, the media should have more integrity and give the space to just a company. It's not right to help promote a candidate a month before one of the biggest elections we've had lately.
There really isn't anything technically wrong with it if the political campaign is paying for the advertising space, if the NY Times sought out Obama then it would be wrong. Also, if McCain wanted advertising space and they refused that would make it biased and wrong.
I don't think that there is necessarily anything wrong with newspapers taking money (they obviously need it...), but I don't think I agree with them putting an ad in for Obama that is larger than the stories. That seems a little excessive.
If the Obama campaign paid for an ad and had it published then there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean that the NY times supports the ad, they're just running an ad. Maybe readers of the newspapaer who like Obama may find the ad helpful or want to buy the book. Don't journalist have a duty to the citizens? If McCain had a similar ad, it would just mean that he wants to advertise his book. The NY times is very popular and a very good way to get a message across and to advertise in the NY times means that Obama was smart enough to find a way to promote his book to a lot of people.
Post a Comment