The negative ads aren't working.
That's what pollster Nik Nanos says after a thorough poll taken over the past few weeks.
The conclusion is that the ads have had no discernable short term impact in favour of the Conservatives. The long term negative impact on Ignatieff remains uncertain and merits further tracking over time.
It's true that this may be just part-one of a multi-attack series; negative ads do have an effect but will it weigh more heavily on the Liberal leader or the so-called leader of the secretive, out-of-touch, uncaring CON party?
But my question is: why isn't the Mainstream Media asking why Canadians are footing the bill for this out-of-season ad blitz?
Is it because the so-called leader named Harper had his surly, bully twin call them and warn them, fool with my subsidy and I'll fool with yours?
When taxpayers subsidize every donation to a political party, from as high as 75% (0-$400 donations), why is no journalist asking the politicians about this 'aggressive ad buy' when 363,000 Canadians have lost their jobs since the start of this recession? From my rough calculations, the taxpayer has unknowingly committed $4 Million of their dollars from the public coffers to this out-of-season hunting spree.
It's time to ask the journalists why?
3 comments:
not that I like or condone the ads -- I don't -- but that (advertising) is what those funds-per-vote are largely in place _for_; the Liberals are free to respond in kind; and, in light of the recession & greatly restricted advertising & severely hurtin' media at the moment, regrettably, they are a form of badly needed "stimulus spending" for the media. (Or are you content seeing the same ING-Direct & Grey Power Insurance ads being replayed endlessly on Newsworld cuz they have no other ads to run?)
Until Harper came around, campaign ads outside of an election were rarer than bigfoot. Also, the subsidy-per-vote hasn't even been distributed as it takes usually 2 years after the vote for it to be sent. You can't suggest that the money the CONs are using for this negative ad buy comes from those subsidy when more than 2/3rds of the party's money is through donor/subsidized fund raising. While there is one way to remove the vote-subsidy -- include a check box on each ballot asking the voter if they want a $2 subsidy to be applied to the party of their choice -- the Harper team (nor the Liberals, to be honest) have attacked the much greater subsidy that is the 75% up to $400 donation...
ok, I shouldn't have muddied the waters with the vote subsidy thing, which I did thru inattention (& the late hour), & which you became too distracted by in rebutting.
But the fact remains -- which you should address, if you're actually gonna advocate banning non-election-time advertising (or is it just the income tax deductions for donations you're gunning for: that'll hurt the Libs, as well, who are finally gearing up their grassroots fundraising) -- those ads rep. some badly-needed stimulus spending for (all but the CBC, by choice) media, who employ those journalists (sometimes indirectly, via parent co's), which is probably why they're not opening that gift horse's mouth.
Post a Comment