
A Modest Proposal - martian
http://www.zeldman.com/
======
DanielBMarkham
What a wonderful idea. Why didn't anybody think of that in the 200+ years of
publishing?

Perhaps because it's specious? In the article the author mentions "Swift Boat"
-- I think this is an excellent example of the problem. The Swift Boat ads
were seen mainly by one party as being fallacious. To use a recent example,
when candidate A says Candidate B voted for sex education for Kintergartners,
Candidate B replies it was age-appropriate. Then Candidate A shows the exact
wording of the bill, which calls for a discussion of the transmission vectors
for HIV.

Everybody can pile on to me about how my examples suck, but you're just
reinforcing the point: there is no universal truth squad that could un-tangle
all of this rhetoric. That's what you, the voter are supposed to be doing.
Stop looking to somebody else to do one of the few things you have a duty to
do in a democracy.

Sorry for the rant. The article just struck me as a great example of the great
gap between what passes as common sense and what would actually work.

~~~
mixmax
I'll tell you what would actually work: Education.

The problem with American politics is that everyone has a vote, not that this
is bad of course, but since the average American is so poorly educated he is
easier to trick with talking points, fancy rhetoric and downright lies. As a
consequence of this any politician that wants to stand a chance of winning
must adress the people in simple language and with simple messages - even if
they're stretching the truth or are outright lies. Lowest common denominator.

I come from a country with an excellent education system, which means that the
lowest common denominator is much higher, and thus politicians can start
talking about the issues, and still appeal to the broad masses. A candidate
that lied would instantly be held accountable by the press and by the people.

~~~
omouse
You know what else could work? Having to enlist in the military to earn your
full citizenship and voting rights. If you had to go through a year or two of
intense physical and mental pressure, you would value your vote a hell of a
lot more.

 _(Starship Troopers ftw)_

~~~
rcoder
You would also ensure that every voting member of the populace had been
exposed to military discipline and doctrine during their impressionable post-
adolescent years. Much of the message of military training is that you should
accept orders, respect the chain of command, and resist the urge to second-
guess the motivations of your superiors.

It's a great way to keep a bunch of heavily-armed people trained to
efficiently kill other people from turning on each other, but it's not
necessarily the thinking you want out your voting populace, unless you want to
make sure that society never moves forward.

The military attitude also strikes me as being pretty much anathema to
hacking.

Now, if you want to talk about mandatory _public_ service, where that two
years can be spent doing social work, student teaching, etc., then I can get
behind the idea.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Please stop the stereotyping of military service. It's shoddy and it's
inaccurate.

For most of our country's history, large portions of the population have been
exposed to military service sometime in their lifetime. This is the longest
period (since the 1970s) where the greatest percentage of people have not had
that experience. It's a great social experiment, one that's not generally
acknowledged.

I'm not going to argue your stereotype. Suffice it to say I have several
concrete examples that each of your points are wrong. "Not even wrong" would
be a better characterization.

~~~
rcoder
I'm not trying to perpetuate a stereotype, by any means. My family has a long
history of military service, and while I may have overstated the potential
social ossification that could arise from _only_ veterans being able to vote,
I very much stand by the assertion that military service affects your thinking
in fundamental and powerful ways.

There are of course other obvious problems with making voting rights dependent
upon military service. Specifically, I doubt that same-sex marriage and civil
unions laws would have passed in even the smattering of states where they did,
if only because few of those most directly affected (i.e., homosexuals) would
have been allowed into the military, and therefore, allowed to vote.

------
icey
A) Ewwww, politics

B) The problem with this idea is that advertisements are rarely factually
incorrect. Far more often the attack ads are merely insinuations, or far out
interpretations of actual fact. These are arguably _more_ dangerous than
outright fallacy, because there is something to back them up.

C) Even if this sort of legislation were to come to pass, nothing would
change. Just because you can't lie doesn't mean you'll start talking about
things that the average Joe Schmoe voter doesn't care about, like economic
policy, national defense, trade relations, etc... The average voter takes the
position of the party he affiliates with. If you don't believe me, look at how
well McCain did when he was actually running a clean campaign and did things
like just talk about the issues.

------
mynameishere
It's always weird to come across articles with pat titles ("Modest Proposal" =
something outrageous, said with a straight face; viz, satire) but that doesn't
fit the mold. No, I think he's actually being serious about regulating ads
based on truth.

In fact, when a politician is caught in a good lie ("Read my lips", "I didn't
have sexual relations with that woman...") it's golden for the enemy. There's
no real incentive to keep the other guy honest.

~~~
eru
You know where the title came from?

~~~
dill_day
For anyone who doesn't: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal>

Had to read this in high school, I liked it

------
natch
He suggests steep fines. Those funds better be escrowed before the ad is
placed, or it won't work.

A much better stick would be a throttling of access to that medium for the
perpetrator.

The problem is hit-and-run attacks from allied but autonomous entities that
melt into thin air (as with Swift Boat and Al Queda), leaving no assets and
nothing to lose.

How about punishing not just the people who placed the ad, but the side which
benefited from their unfair use of the media?

The best solution would be an informed electorate that pays attention to
reality, but that's just a nice dream in a country where 70% or more believe
in a fairy-God.

------
edw519
Warning: The Surgeon General has determined that political advertising can be
hazardous to your health.

Why not just remove all political ads from mass media, just like cigarettes?
Save a billion dollars. People will figure out who to vote for just like they
figure out which brand to smoke.

~~~
hugh
Would we also be able to stop yard signs and bumper stickers? Because they
also annoy me.

There is, of course, this pesky thing called "Freedom of speech".

~~~
Retric
You can say what you want but they can limit when and where you can say it:
wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones

I say ban all political ads or ban wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones but am
not willing to live with both at the same time.

------
pg
Is it actually illegal to make false claims in a radio or tv ad?

~~~
BrandonM
I always was under the impression that it opened up the advertiser to civil
suits for false advertisement, but I have never heard anything saying that it
was illegal. Of course, I have no expertise on the matter.

------
Jem
Link should be <http://www.zeldman.com/2008/09/15/a-modest-proposal/> ?

------
bsaunder
"... if America’s networks remember they are Americans first, revenue seekers
second."

Unfortunately, they revenue seekers first. They are accountable to their
shareholders (American or not). It's the politicians themselves that should be
looking out for citizens first (not themselves or corporations). That is their
job. Unfortunately they seem to have forgotten that in the last couple of
decades.

~~~
andreyf
_Unfortunately they seem to have forgotten that in the last couple of
decades._

The problem is not with them, the problem is that the ones who remember don't
get elected.

------
dazzawazza
A less modest but more useful angle might be to free America's media from the
control of the elite. More critical analysis would flourish, more Americans
could make a critical decision and maybe the planet would be a better place.

We are lucky in the UK as we are all taxed to pay for the BBC. Americans can
also watch BBC America if they chose.

~~~
anamax
The BBC isn't a media "control[ed] by an elite"?

~~~
hugh
Even more so than any commercial network. The BBC is a law unto itself,
beholden neither to the government of the day nor to the viewers. They produce
the programs they feel like producing, and only hire people who think like
themselves.

Now this has some good points, and the BBC actually winds up producing some
very good television, but it's definitely the "elite telling you what to
watch" model.

~~~
eru
Same in Germany. Except the intertwining with the political parties may be
even higher.

------
signa11
!HN

------
rflrob
What about some sort of rating of ads by an external, independent body
(something like FactCheck.org). When you go to a movie, they make an
announcement: "the following movie has been rated {(P)G(-13), R} by the MPAA".
Why not do the same with FactCheck: "The following ad has been rated..." You
could make this entirely voluntary, but add in incentives to do so, like
discounted air-time rates.

