From Mad Men to McCain
Like many followers of AMC's Mad Men -- all 1.9 million of us -- I have loved the trip back to institutionalized sexism, nose-cone bras, mid-morning office cocktails, ever-present cigarette smoke and, most of all, to a seminal time in the development of modern advertising.
It was a time when selling moved from the earnest listing of product attributes to the dexterous manipulation of consumer emotion -- when you could counter the government's ban on cigarette health claims, by telling smokers that the tobacco is "toasted."
It struck me: while consumer advertising has moved on, political advertising is caught in a curious time warp -- combining modern technology with the unfettered, unregulated ability to say that black is white, down is up and the opponent hates puppies.
As consumers have grown harder to fool in their product choices, protections have increased. The Federal Trade Commission says you cannot mislead consumers by "representations made or suggested by statement, word, design, device, sound, or any combination thereof ..."
As I watch the McCain campaign sink into a Rovean mire of half-truths and outright lies, those FTC prohibitions look like the lead paragraph in a McCain strategy manual.
You can't advertise one price and charge another. You can't call something low-fat when it's not. You can't even run an ad for a treatment for toenail fungus without two pages of qualifiers.
You can, however, say that Obama wants a government-run health system, when the truth is he wants government subsidy for a market based system. You can also say that Obama is against offshore drilling, when he said in his campaign speech that offshore drilling is one of the many energy avenues to explore. And taking deceit right into the homes and hearts of American parents, you can say Obama wants comprehensive sex education for kindergarten students, when what he really proposed was giving kids the knowledge they need to recognize predators and improper touching.
So the shadowy image machinery hums along at a time when we have never had a greater need for -- and hunger for -- truth and transparency.
The question is: why?
One answer is that it is the death flails of a campaign in deep trouble after an especially bad week: where Obama was the consensus winner of the debates; McCain rode to the rescue of Washington and, by most accounts, just got in the way; and the Palin narrative blew up in front of Katie Couric and the nation.
But there is another answer. A question has been posed on HuffPost: Does McCain think the American people are stupid?
He doesn't think it; he's counting on it. This is a country where four in ten US adults still think Saddam was involved in 9-11, and half still think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One fifth of us can't even find the U.S. on a world map. Close to one in five believe the sun revolves around the earth. I wish I made that last one up. I didn't.
I'm encouraged that the media has accepted the role of truth police in ways we haven't seen in previous elections. The likes of Jon Stewart are gleefully eviscerating lies and misstatements. Laughter, it seems, may truly be the best medicine. When the media knows it can be the butt of the joke, it raises everybody's game.
I am also concerned that even as the lies are exposed, parsed and ridiculed, the McCain campaign keeps on lying anyway -- apparently believing that you can't fool all of the people all of the time, but you just might be able to fool enough of them to win an election.
We figured out that toasted tobacco can still kill you; just like we learned that a president will lie to build support for an unnecessary war. As we count down the final weeks, this may be the election where enough of us will take those lessons to heart. Maybe this is the time, we will look beyond what the candidates say -- and see who they are.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Maybe we just need to get US a good gimmick too.
America will get the president we deserve.
If more people vote for McPalie, then, Oh well.
Guess I won't have to worry about retirement. There won't be a world left to retire in.
This is a country where four in ten US adults still think Saddam was involved in 9-11, and half still think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One fifth of us can't even find the U.S. on a world map. Close to one in five believe the sun revolves around the earth. I wish I made that last one up. I didn't.
You just summarized Palin's beliefs. You just forgot to mention that she believes that Dinosaurs and humans coexisted (which is only slightly true as John McCain is the only human who coexisted with Dinosaurs)
Our election system is so crazy that it would be foolish to NOT expect the participants to engage in the most egregious negative rhetoric.
We need to completely outlaw campaign advertising,.
In its place have open forum discussions by the candidates, televised in prime time over the space of three months. The focus would be solely on the issues. Any personal or negative attacks on on the other candidates would be considered a foul, and discouraged. By restoring some civility and common sense to the way the prospects interact we'd all be better for it.
We've had enough of the Jerry Springer audience mentality------why continue to propagate it ??
"The Media may have another reason for it's lack of investigative zeal. A close horse-race assures large viewing audiences and more advertising revenue."
As Indie2008 has so succinctly pointed out, our TV news divisions stopped being the last wall of defense between truth and fiction the moment that they were charged with turning a profit for their respective networks. Thus the exponential increase in "human interest" segments (oh, what a cute little ferret that 2nd grade class just adopted - and what is Lindsay Lohan up to now?!), all of which rob time and detail from far more vital news stories.
A spot-on, timely complaint nevertheless, Ms. Drexler. As an advertising professional myself, I've often asked the same rhetorical question: How can we require legal approval and extensive disclaimers for a TOOTHPASTE ad, but allow outright lies to be broadcast and spun and sold as "alternative opinions." Sorry, but the statement "two plus two equals four" is not something open to debate along Party lines.
Please, look beyond the lies. Get informed. Get involved. Register ( http://www
"Maybe this is the time, we will look beyond what the candidates say -- and see who they are."
Even including the qualifier, Peggy, you have more faith in the electorate than recent history tells us is prudent.
LIES are at the root of "all" of Americas current problems.
If suddenly our leaders could "only" speak the TRUTH, we would see our problems resolved one by one, step by step, truthful statement by truthful statement.
WE need to wake up to the sea of LIES that are drowning us ALL!!
Every LIE should be confronted with TRUTH!!
TRUTH POWER will set us ALL free.
The standard news outlets are no longer news but info-tainment sources and more importantly they are on the payroll of corporate America. News is much less important than the cost of capital and the return thereof when it comes to GE, Walt Disney, etc. Most of America has not really figured out that while you now have more "information" than ever, you have to work and dig pretty deep to figure out the story. In fact you might have to think a bit as well. This just doesn't go over well in general.
My boyfriend always tells me that watching MSNBC, the Daily Show, and reading the HuffPost is propoganda
I'm actually stunned by the lack of ambition displayed by journalists today. Woodward and Bernstein had to navigate a treacherous maze of intrigue and secrecy to expose the inner demons of the Nixon administration.
The so-called journalist in the current MSN seem content to go with the flow. To only dig into the story after they've been scooped by Jay Leno or The National Inquirer.
Today, it takes comedy shows like SNL and John Stewart to expose a candidate like Sarah Palin's meager credentials.
Where are todays Murrows, Woodwards, Bernsteins and Cronkites?
Will David Letterman have to be the guy who continues to out McCain for his erratic and dishonest behavior?
Our MSM has gotten fat and lazy, and they're in danger of becoming extinct as they tiptoe around today's unprecedented events. Seems like a perfect environment for a journalist with a hunger and ambition to break new ground.
Until then, we have the brilliant Tina Fey.
While Jon Stewart and opinion programs like Olberman's Countdown are out there daily debunking the lies, it's the major Networks that seem suddenly very timid. News programs that do exposes on everything from consumer products to religion, seem to have no curiosity about exposing obvious double standards and untruths of the McCain campaign, and the campaign is emboldened by it. As Drexler points out, they are absolutely counting on the stupidity of an uninformed electorate.
The Media may have another reason for it's lack of investigative zeal. A close horse-race assures large viewing audiences and more advetising revenue.
The answer to your question is rather simple. We now have slander/libel laws and FTC trade regulations against false claims in advertising. These things don't apply to political ads. You are allowed to say whatever you want in a political ad, free of consequence. The reason being, trying to police the truth in politics could create a dangerous threat to democracy.
The reason is more complex than that. Commercial advertising can be policed by congress because it is under the "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution, so the FTC has jurisdiction. Political speech is protected by the 1st amendment - and thus is out of the purview of the federal government. Since the 14th amendment, most of the Bill of Rights has been interpreted to be "incorporated" into state governments, as well. So, any effort by individual states to regulate political speech has run afoul of 1st amendment protections, as well.
Until slanderous and untruthful political speech is treated like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre, it will be protected under the 1st amendment.
We must remember, free speech is still an experiment in human politics - with all sorts of unintended consequences.
Appreciate the extended details, but that doesn't make it more complex. It's still the exact same thing I said. You can lie in political ads. You can't lie in ads to sell other things.
whenever I watch Mad Men and I am in awe at the beautiful lighting and photography and sets and wardrobe
-- I then think about how disgustingly awful it must have SMELLED in those offices.
Ah, the sweet smell of success! ; )
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
