Democrats should pay back MSM with fewer election ads

[pwb]

they should use mail and print media and internet ads instead of giving money to the MSM that favors the pukes at every turn. Any ad they place on fox news is money wasted in my view.

[waiting for hope]

1. They would lose a large audience if

they did that. I would rather that the ads reached fence sitters in hopes that it may change minds. It would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[pwb]

2. so you say reward your enemies?

[Skinner]

3. Way to put words in her mouth.

That isn't what she said.

[pwb]

5. it was a question admin

[msongs]

4. that is NOT what waiting for hope said. do you work for fox news? nt

[ejbr]

6. I am inclined to side with Waiting

If the Democrats were smart and had some cojones (yeah, I know, they don't), they would not only advertise in the MSM, but would also take subtle jabs at them in the process. Somewhere in their ad they could say something like:

"Somehow this administration has been able to dissemenate lies to the American public unchallenged. If you want to know the truth, with supporting documentation, please visit our web site..."

However, I COMPLETELY share your outrage with the media. COMPLETELY!

[pwb]

10. Dear waiting

i got spanked for asking you a question. sorry. guess i am not worthy because i only have posted 400 times.

[waiting for hope]

13. While I appreciate your OP suggestion -

you may want to think it through a bit. Senior citizens still make up a large voting block. In most cases (as with my parents), they do not have jobs where they can be in front of the computer 24/7 to see internet ads, they only have access to the local paper (which in my area is somewhat on the purple side) and because they are registered Republicans, they really wouldn't be on a Democratic mailing list. The MSM (as abhorrent as it has been) may well be the only place they are to get their information about candidates. My Dad actually likes Edwards and Obama, he may well vote for them and if he were to be exposed to ads that outline their issues, I'm all for it.

BTW - we all have been spanked one or two times, I wouldn't worry about it.;)

[HereSince1628]

7. It's hard to imagine super collosal Tuesday with no TV ads

Money for simultaneous saturation ads in all the big states seems like the sine qua non of this seasons' election strategies.

[pwb]

8. pay back is a bitch

we need to learn that. the pukes use it.

[HereSince1628]

9. Sorry, I'm slow this morning, what payback to whom for what?

No offense, really, but apparently we aren't on the same wavelength and I don't understand how that follows my post. Can you say that another way?

[pwb]

11. my point was, why buy time from the media that smears democrats

thats all. threaten to pay back with less time bought.

[HereSince1628]

12. Ok. That's plenty clear. IMO the reason is because with all the big

states moving up their primaries, candidates can't be in all these very delegate rich states simultaneously. And there is no doubt that they need to use the media to reach registered voters thousands of miles apart.

They'll do that 2 ways. 1 they'll buy a tremendous amount of dollars worth of air time. 2 they'll be trying to create "news events" that will get them national news coverage.

No doubt there will be a huge push to move campaign stories on the internet as well, but it's much harder to reach the masses that way because a viewer must choose to go to a website and believe it or not, not everyone has the will to do that.

To get a message from MSM, we viewers just have to be lazy: the message will pop out at us unless we reach the remote and hit mute, or walk out of the room, or be lucky to be in light traffic so if we are inclined to do so we can safely change stations on the car radio.

[azurnoir]

14. No we can not

afford less ads there would be a huge audience loss, however once back in full power the Dems should redefine FCC regs to the force the media conglomerates to go the way AT&T, and reinstate the fairness doctrine.