Learn from Baseball and Don't Air Bad Behavior

Every so often a beer-drunk fan will run on the field during a baseball game causing a delay while the cops chase him down. Back in the days of streaking, sometimes these fans would run out on the field naked.

You'll never see one of these scenes on TV because there's a rule that the broadcasters are not allowed to follow the drunk baseball fan onto the field. If they were to broadcast the drunk fan, the theory goes, that would just encourage more people to do it, meaning more delayed games, annoyed players, offended fans and busted streakers.

It seems to me this very simple rule should be adopted by news networks when it comes to the most hideous attack ads.

Example. The North Carolina Republican Party has yet to spend a dime running a racist attack ad against Obama, one that McCain and the national party swear they don't want them to run. But millions of TV viewers have seen the ad, repeatedly, run for free on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc. This seems grossly unfair, and how does it not count as a campaign contribution?

We've seen this before, Bush swore that the swiftboat ads that questioned John Kerry's honor and patriotism were unfair and he didn't want them run, but they helped him anyway, and somehow I doubt his sincerity as I doubt McCain's. But you can't really blame them, in this age many candidates believe they must do whatever they have to do, no matter how immoral or unethical, to get elected. In the analogy, they'll always run onto the field, naked if they have to, to get past the competition.

But why should we tolerate the news organizations giving free air time to the campaigns? Aren't they making an illegal campaign contribution when they run a Republican attack ad without giving equal time to Democratic attack ads?

Maybe they could invoke their integrity (as they so often do when it suits them) for the good of the electoral process and force the attackers to pay for the air time? And maybe if they weren't granted so much free air time, seemingly in proportion to their ugliness, perhaps fewer of them would even be produced.

Comments

[jgfox]

The Obama - Wright 20 year relationship is a fact and it is fair to show them linked together.

Of course, it illicits Howls from Obamites. Tough. He's your candidate .... so suck it up.

It is a very damaging relationship and brings into question Obama's judgement and beliefs.

If he wants to associate himself and family with a Church that preaches hatred of the US and a Black Liberation Theology, he'll have to defend his stance.

Let's see now ... we can't use his middle name, or state he is a Liberal, or question his choice of Church and Pastor, or show him in any ad with a white women .... is there an approved list of what we can question him about?

Princeton Junction

[indypete]

Splendid idea. It needs to be implemented immediately. Never happen, of course... DOA!

[indypete]

Of course if we look at it as literal instead of an analogy... if Michelle Obama or Cindy McCain ran onto the field naked, I think that would be worth watching. Bill Clinton, not so much!

[PuritanDescendant]

For each ad, have a very specific counter-ad. It would help if it were controversial. Then of make the very argument Winer makes: equal time!

Of course, the media could just not play these controversial reports, nor even report on them.

[unitron]

It's not an ad attacking Obama, it's an ad using Obama to attack Moore and Perdue.

[BobMunck]

We need to face facts: our national press is no longer even pretending to have any integrity. They are willing, even eager, to sacrifice our Constitution, our political system, our country, and our way of life to enhance their corporate bottom line.

[MrWinky]

I completely agree, but it will never happen. How many times have we seen the cowardly media pursue and issue that is so irrelevant, unnewsworthy and vile, but they hide under the "Uh, no, we're not saying it, but it's on the internet," or "It is an issue his opponent raised." Using this new trick, the media has been able to throw out the wildest of claims which would normally get them laughed out of their sorry profession, but now they can do it and say, "well, we thought it shoud be addressed, and it was really someone else's question."