Do change that dial
Published January 7, 2014
Editorial by Charlotte Observer, January 5, 2014.
It’s an election year, which guarantees at least one thing: Politicians will be invading your television with 30-second ads. And in North Carolina especially, it won’t just be politicians; it will be outside special interest groups with deep pockets and skin in the game.
The conservative group Americans For Prosperity is currently running $1.4 million of ads across the state hitting Sen. Kay Hagan for her support of Obamacare. Republican Thom Tillis is spending $300,000 to air ads in Asheville, the Triad and Wilmington, arguing that Hagan “enabled President Obama’s worst ideas.”
Outside groups have already spent $9.7 million on this race. Such groups from all political bents are expected to try to steer the outcomes of races for the N.C. Supreme Court and other seats as well.
Both parties know ads hitting one’s opponent usually work. There’s nothing wrong with informing voters about your opponent’s record, or distinguishing your views from theirs. But many such ads stretch the truth, and pretty much all of them lack context.
What’s a voter to do? Not all voters will work to understand the nuances and the truth. But we have faith that you, dear editorial readers, are the kind of folks who will. Look for truth-squading of ads from the Observer and other outlets, educate yourself and – at a bare minimum – know that much of what you’re hearing is not as black and white as it sounds.
January 7, 2014 at 10:07 am
Norm Kelly says:
It's true that political ads try to present in black and white what often is not black and white.
This editorial only points out the conservative groups that are trying to sway voters' opinion. Why is that? Can we depend on the Journal to be fair and balanced in their editorials in the future regarding what's real and what's not real in the upcoming ads? Or will the Journal continue to point out only conservative groups spending money and questioning the content?
In some of the ads there is truth. For instance, any ad that claims K enabled His Highness's worst ideas is true. K doesn't think it was wrong to not extend unemployment benefits, though the new budget deal passed both houses and was signed by his high holiness. K wants to renew the extended unemployment benefits, even if they are NOT paid for, meaning we will go further into DEBT! Remember that many Demons voted for the new budget deal knowing that the extended unemployment benefits were not in there. So when Demons start blaming Republicans for hating the 'disadvantaged' remember that the new budget deal was co-authored by a Demon and it couldn't have passed and become law without Demon support. So the conclusion that you MUST draw if you listen to the DemocRAT ads is that they hate the 'disadvantaged' as much as the Republicans do.
And let's go one further. K's ideas on socialized medicine. She is one of many demoncrats who are on record as disliking Obamacare. Why? Because it's too much intrusion by the central planners? Because it forces people off their existing self-pay plan onto a more expensive, less benefits government plan? Because Obamacare interferes with the relationship between my doctor and myself? No to every one of these reasons. K dislikes and wants to change Obamacare because it DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH! K is on record as saying that she wants to transform Obamacare into a 'single payer' system. This is socialist code for socialized medicine. The complete take-over of the medical industry in the country. The complete take-over of the relationship between my doctor and myself. K is of the mind that Washington should be the repository of ALL medical records, for easy review by un-elected government employees to see if there is a way for the central planners to reduce costs. Not to make the system better, which neither Obamacare nor 'single payer' systems aim or are able to do. But to concentrate more power, more control in the central planners. I don't know the editorial board at the Journal where this editorial appeared. But I wonder as the election cycle proceeds if this Journal will ask K about this, if they will write editorials about this aspect of K's plans, if they will do any in-depth reporting on how well socialized medicine is working in the European countries that have been doing it for years.
If these outside groups have skin in the game, why does it seem to concern this editorial writer so much? Why point out that it's an outside group? Are there outside groups who will also be supporting K? Which union won't be supporting K and paying for less-than-truthful ads against K's opponent? Will this Journal report on THOSE outside groups? Will this Journal write editorials wondering who the contributors are to these groups? Will they insist that the fed or state Board of Elections/FEC investigate these outside liberal groups to demand, against the law, the list of all donors? I'll believe it when I see it. In the meantime, I'll expect K to get lots of media outlet support. I'll expect many media outlets to continue to run stories about the conservative groups, and conservative outside groups, trying to buy the election and trying to pull the wool over a majority of voters. Why doesn't the Journal run many, many, many stories about K's record? Why not run stories that quote K's comments about specific issues? Why not run stories about the times K has wanted to raise taxes on the 'wealthy', cut spending on existing programs (cuz there aren't these!), how K insists that a Washington-provided cell phone is a rip-off for those of us who are stupid enough to pay for our own cell service, as well as be gouged by Washington for paying for someone else's free cell phone. How about running editorials on K showing that she worked against the NLRB when they targeted a private business for building a manufacturing plant in South Carolina, trying to hire local people for local jobs? Let's see this Journal document how K stood up for states rights, jobs, workers rights, the tax base of SC, and many other aspects of a new business in SC when the new plant was built and people were going to be hired. What exactly was K's stand on this central planner interference with private business? What has been K's stand on private-pay health insurance citizens getting their coverage forcibly cancelled? How does K react to the FACT that fewer people have signed up for Obamacare than were kicked off their plans by the central planners?
It's the Journal's job to make sure the information gets out to the voters. Instead of complaining that not enough of us do our own research to be educated, how about the Journal do IT'S job and do the research and reporting for us. There are people employed by the Journal who have nothing to do all day but to do research, ask questions, contact the candidates, contact the supporters, and then get that information out to their readers. Shouldn't these paid people do their job and do the research? Shouldn't the Journal at least try to mask itself as a newspaper and do research and report their results? I suggest the Journal stop whining and start doing their job. (my apologies if they do. i'm used to the N&D which lacks the ability to report the full story, do any useful research & reporting. and i don't get to read all of the journal, only the editorials here. i'd like to think the journal does it's job, but it will have to be proved to me. who will they endorse on their editorial page? if they are like the N&D, they will endorse K regardless of what comes out about her.)
