Eight reasons to hit ‘mute’ during TV ads by super PACs

Voters in GOP primaries have been the first to experience a coming deluge of TV advertising nationwide from so-called super PACs in the 2012 presidential election. By November, total spending by the special-interest political-action committees could exceed $1 billion, by some estimates, all with the aim to sway voters for or against candidates – most likely against.

TV viewers do have a choice of whether to listen to them, according to a "Monitor's View" editorial. It’s called the mute button. (The function was first designed in 1950 by Zenith when the owner of the TV maker become fed up with commercials.) Here are eight reasons to use it:

1. You are not alone if you dislike super PACs.

Reuters/Brian Snyder
Rick Santorum listens as fellow GOP presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul chat during a break in a debate in Tampa, Florida Jan. 23. Spending by super PACs is expected to exceed $1 billion by some estimates. But there is a way voters can ignore their largely negative ads and corrupting influence: Hit the mute button.

Two-thirds of Americans who are aware of the groups’ emergence in politics say they will have a negative impact on elections, according to a Pew Research Center poll. Super PACs can spend unlimited amounts on behalf of a candidate.

Almost half of voters, however, have not heard of their existence. Super PACs sprang up after a 2010 Supreme Court ruling (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) that said institutions from corporations to unions have similar free-speech rights as people in campaigns – if super PACs are run independently of campaigns (a big if).

1 of 8

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.