BCT Editorial – 11/11/10

The real payoff; Editorial; Beaver County Times; November 11, 2010.

The editorials didn’t define what it meant by “negative political ads.”  Some people consider exposing another candidate’s positions as “negative” while others use the negative label only when ads cross the line into misrepresentation, lying, name-calling, et cetera.  Ads using the first definition are useful because that’s the only way we’re going to hear both “bad” and “good” about a candidate.  Face it, candidates will tell you what they consider to be positive, but won’t tell you about positions, votes, et cetera they think voters won’t like.  Ads using the second definition generally tell more about the person running the ad than the target candidate.

The editorials write of “the willingness of candidates to bypass the federal pubic [sic] financing system.”  Note the editorials failed to remind us Mr. Obama bypassed federal public funding in the 2008 campaign while Mr. McCain stuck with it.

You’ll note the editorials describes problems with “negative” ads but not with negative editorials.  This is consistent with other editorials on this topic (here and here).

The editorials write of “being able to set the tone for the election, define its terms and, most important, determine what is true. (Please remember that the truth is open to interpretation, and that accuracy is the first victim of politics).”  Translation: The Times believes these actions should be limited only to those businesses part of the press, like Times owner and operator Calkins Media, Inc.  By the way, truth is NOT “open to interpretation.”

The editorials told us about “U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat from Michigan who did not seek re-election.”  The editorials failed to note why Mr. Stupak did not seek re-election.  Mr. Stupak voted for Obamacare and indications are it permits taxpayer funding of abortions.  Mr. Stupak knew he could no longer pose as “a pro-life Democrat” so he bailed out.