McCain's Ad Scam: Why Pay For What the Media Will Do For Free?

Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly at 11:14 AM on August 27, 2008.

McCain isn't airing most of his ads, just sending them directly to a media all too willing to show them around.

Post Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
10 COMMENTS

Share and save this post:

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

PEEK RSS Feed

Main AlterNet RSS Feed

Also in PEEK

Study Shows 'Center-Right Nation' Narrative Spiked Immediately After Election Day
David Sirota Blog for Our Future

Maddow Fails to Question Huckabee On His Recent Anti-Gay Statements. Update: Maddow Responds
Ali Frick Think Progress

Kristol Continues His Love Affair With Sarah Palin
Sam Stein Huffington Post

Just about every day, the McCain campaign releases a new "ad," which is released to the media along with a vague promise that the commercial will air somewhere, at some point. Cable networks, predictably, run the ad over and over again, for free, as part of their coverage of the campaign. This has been especially true this week, with a series of McCain campaign "ads" featuring Hillary Clinton.

The WSJ's Aaron Rutkoff noted that this is part of a well-executed scam that the news networks keep falling for.

That doesn't mean these McCain ads won't be seen by voters. The national media, which has its sensors tuned to any signs of Clinton-Obama drama in Denver, has readily amplified the messages. "These were basically video press releases," says CMAG's Evan Tracey. McCain's Hillary-related ads are "designed to get under Democrats' skin in Denver and designed to get into the convention coverage."

Obama spokesperson Tommy Vietor told reporters yesterday, "Note to cable networks: The only time McCain's Clinton-themed ads are running is when they're included in your programming."

Kevin added, "If they were podcasts, or blog posts, or flyers, or email blasts, the media would ignore them if their purpose were so transparent. I mean, who cares about a flyer produced in small quantities and handed out only to the media? But if it's video, it's news!"

But why would major news outlets repeatedly fall for the same trick, even when they realize the ads are created for the sole purpose of free media attention? There are competing explanations, but my hunch is a lot of outlets are just lazy, and video press releases make their jobs easier.

Tagged as: ads, obama, mccain, mainstream media sucks

Return to PEEK » Post Tools: EMAIL PRINT 10 COMMENTS PERMALINK

Also in PEEK
Study Shows 'Center-Right Nation' Narrative Spiked Immediately After Election Day We're not talking about theory anymore - we're talking about empirical fact. Post by David Sirota. November 21, 2008.	Maddow Fails to Question Huckabee On His Recent Anti-Gay Statements. Update: Maddow Responds When contacted by ThinkProgress, Rachel Maddow explained her reasons for avoiding the subject of gay rights with Huckabee. Post by Ali Frick. November 21, 2008.	Kristol Continues His Love Affair With Sarah Palin Albeit with one small concession concerning Joe Lieberman. Post by Sam Stein. November 21, 2008.

Comments	Turn comments off sitewide	Give us feedback »
Comments closed. The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.		View:
Joke... [Report this comment] Posted by: RobNLA on Aug 27, 2008 11:27 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] If any attack ad fell in the forest nowhere near MSM, would anyone hear it? [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Why fall for the same trick over and over? [Report this comment] Posted by: Lauren on Aug 27, 2008 11:40 AM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] is a lot of outlets are just lazy, and video press releases make their jobs easier. Or they are supporting McCain. I think it is the false 'fair and balanced' idea. The reporters have all been trained to give equal time to be 'fair'. This edict is not dependent on quantity or quality of news, so a large substantial story from Obama means the reporters have to scramble to provide 'balance' for McCain. What have they got? Nothing, he is taking a nap, but here is todays 'ad'. They run with it and give equal time, blah, blah, blah. The whole system is seriously flawed to promote their hidden purpose, whatever that is, they don't tell us. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] The Public Society [Report this comment] Posted by: curiousdwk on Aug 27, 2008 12:58 PM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] The failure of our society's educational system can be seen by noting the effectiveness of marketing programs. The fact that the false, immaterial, narcissistic and idiotic marketing plans are embraced by the public shows that our society is sadly deficient in critical analysis and good judgment. And if that society is the product of our educational system, then our educational system needs an overhaul. It's hard not to be cynical when observing the lunacy of an unintelligent society where the votes of the idiots count as much as the votes of reason. That an anti-science moron like Bush can become the leader of this society for eight years is testimony of the lack of intelligence in our society. Why should MSM give the public meat when the society wants pablum? [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » RE: The Public Society Posted by: voter Fairness Doctrine! [Report this comment] Posted by: weslen1 on Aug 27, 2008 1:21 PM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] One more reason why we have to have the Fairness Doctrine re-instated. Republicans got rid of that because they are only for "free" speech for themselves. If networks had to go back to giving equal time for ALL points of view and for rebuttals as they used to, this kind of cheat would stop so fast you'd forget it ever happened. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] kvass [Report this comment] Posted by: kvass on Aug 27, 2008 3:08 PM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] By accepting and repeatedly running these so called ads for free isn't this really a way for the networks to contribute to the campaign fund. Surely this is an infringement of their broadcast licenses? [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » It would infringe on networks' broadcast licenses, if the... Posted by: jvaljon1 » RE: It would infringe on networks' broadcast licenses, if the... Posted by: kvass A check of federal election laws... [Report this comment] Posted by: djnoll on Aug 27, 2008 5:31 PM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] and telecommunication laws should reveal that not paying for these ads to the networks means that the stations must either run similar ads by the Obama campaign in not only the same time slots, but also in equal number, or the campaign must report them as in-kind contributions at the current advertising rates for that station. This could easily bankrupt the McCain campaign and the RNC. It is time for the DNC and the Obama campaign to demand that these ads not be run as part of the story line they are reporting, merely reported on as being an attack ad and its theme. It is time to hold the media accountable for their content and demand that their licenses be yanked if they fail to provide the appropriate level of service. File a complaint with the FCC every time you see one of these stories and demand that they be fined for these violations of their licensure agreements. Flood the FCC from all over the nation in overwhelming numbers for the same shows and reporting, and you might see a change, especially if your complaint specifically targets not just the stations, but also the McCain campaign as violating the FCC rules regarding payment for time services. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » RE: A check of federal election laws... Posted by: Magginkat

«	November 2008					»
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30

» RE: The Public Society Posted by: voter

» It would infringe on networks' broadcast licenses, if the... Posted by: jvaljon1

» RE: It would infringe on networks' broadcast licenses, if the... Posted by: kvass

» RE: A check of federal election laws... Posted by: Magginkat

PEEK archive by date:

Use » and « to view other months.

Search:

» RE: The Public Society Posted by: voter

» It would infringe on networks' broadcast licenses, if the... Posted by: jvaljon1

» RE: It would infringe on networks' broadcast licenses, if the... Posted by: kvass

» RE: A check of federal election laws... Posted by: Magginkat