If HMG were genuinely concerned about the super-rich distorting the system, then your Russian plutocrats would be kept out of our other media and strict media ownership rules would be reintroduced. What’ so precious about TV anyway?

Interesting post - especially agree with the ‘law as unrefined politics in this context’ point near the end.

To pick up your third reservation, though, there are two components of the UK ban, the first focused on party political adverts (mitigated by PEBs and PPBs), the second also precluding comment by any other ‘political’ organisation or other person with a political message. A relaxation of the ban re the second aspect need not impact on party finances at all. Indeed, it might take the pressure off a bit if others were carrying the spend on their behalf.

To date, those frustrated by the ban have been charities and marginalised groups (ADI, ProLife Alliance, Making Poverty History, Oxfam, Amnesty, RSPCA etc - hence the report put out by Baroness Kennedy et al last year), not the uber-rich factions (they can get around the ban by buying newspapers, or by having PR agencies supply copy). Hence, the former are the voices that are excluded from the MSM to a greater or lesser extent (see Rowntree Foundation report on poverty reporting); at least, their viewpoints are always mediated. Corporations remain free to advertise their partial perspectives in ‘commercial’ advertising slots (most egregiously, and in some cases humorously by car manufacturers). Of course, this might change if the ban were lifted and those from the latter category came to see advertising as the easier route (for a dystopian view - that is a comment on the US experience - see Falk, Grizard and McDonald (2006) Legislative Issue Advertising in the 108th Congress: Pluralism or Peril? Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(4):148-164).

Most important though are issues of audience and media response to such messaging. In the latter respect, as per TransAtlantic, might we not expect journalists to pick up and challenge propositions put in advertisements. It would after all be obvious to spot - the naked exercise of power, rather than the obscured version that we have today. In the first regard, research evidence from the states suggests that viewers turn off or even adopt an oppositional standpoint to (third party) campaign ads (see the entertaining Pulp Politics, author forgotten for now), and that such advertising is largely ineffective in terms of persuading people (although it is very effective in terms of agenda-setting inside the Beltway - see Falk et al (2003)). One might argue that all publicity is good publicity - and ADI certainly got a bang for their buck in terms of coverage of (the early stages of) their action - but doesn’t this speak directly to your trust/credibility line of thought…

Anyway, best regards
 Andrew

I grant you, the system is open to abuse and misinformation: but shutting it down entirely is not a reasoned answer. I think that, even with its flaws, the US system is far superior. The matter for debate there is not whether or not they should allow political ads - simply how they should be funded.

There is no reason we couldn’t have that same debate ongoing in the UK while Political Ads were made legal.

I don’t for a minute believe that it will lead to a sudden increase in negative, or ignoble, ads - for two reasons: 1) Some PPBs are already negative - so in terms of content it would be no different to the current situation (there would just be a greater number), and 2) the “ignoble dollars” are most likely to come from big corporations (like Oil Companies), who are already free to run as many Ads as they like on TV - cf: the number of car ads, alcohol ads, etc, already on the airwaves.

Anyhow - my support for political ads is more practical than it is ideological: I feel that campaigns are prohibited from advertising here, in whatever form, and the electorate tend to be less educated and less engaged as a result. That, in turn, makes campaigning much harder.

 — -and to respond to the newspaper issue: I don’t agree at all - they’re so involved in partisan politics that they would lap this up! Just because ITV or five have a few ads from Cameron or Brown doesn’t give them a political allegiance (especially if they have ads from both parties)…. but it certainly does give the papers material to “report on” (trans. “work with”).

Newspapers don’t want TV to become a partisan playground - that’s their job.

Will check out the post!

What’s your rationale for saying that the British Print Media will oppose the introduction of political advertising?

I’ve blogged on this, too. Let me know what you think:
 http://www.transatlanticpost.com