Power, Politics, Advertising, Money, Media and Cursing – It’s A Thriller!

Michael Hedges April 26, 2010 - Follow on Twitter

There’s a lot of money in politics. As political stakes rise more money pours into the election process. For media companies, it’s just another revenue stream but one very lucrative.

Broadcasters in Ireland want the ban on political advertising overturned. Politicians in Lithuania, Latvia and Poland, by contrast, are arguing for halting political ads on radio and television. In the middle are consumers either unable to escape the barrage of “Vote For Me” messages during election campaigns or unwilling to bear the thought of hearing them.

“The current law is outmoded and inappropriate and it is questionable as to whether it is robust enough to withstand a legal challenge in the European Court,” said Today FM CEO and Independent Broadcasters of Ireland (IBI) chairman Willie O’Reilly, quoted by the Irish Times (April 20). “If the Government refuses to look at this issue seriously we may be left with no option but to take a challenge to the courts ourselves.”  O’Reilly told the IBI annual conference (April 19) the political ad ban pushes the money to the internet, untouched by Irish rules.

“The simple fact is that the internet has made the ban irrelevant,” O’Reilly told the assembled broadcasters. “The Obama campaign was won online and all the parties in the British election are committed to campaigning intensively online. It is ludicrous that a political party can advertise on a radio station’s website but cannot advertise on the radio itself."

Mr. O’Reilly’s nod to potential legal challenges refers to several recent decisions by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upholding rights of free expression under the Convention on Human Rights (Article 10). The ascendancy, too, of political advertising and campaign messaging with new media makes room for a broader discussion of rights to political expression and the evolution of political speech in the public sphere. The courts, particularly the ECHR, can rule against denying access to the public sphere for political advertising. Less is possible to keep it all civil. 

Recent cases before the ECHR show the degree to which national governments find political speech through mass media contentious. The Court has consistently found against blanket bans, denying any argument that weakens free expression. 

A private local television station in Norway was fined in 2003 for broadcasting an ad for a small political party in advance of local elections. The case wound its way to the ECHR, which, in 2008, found Norway had violated Article 10 (TV-Vest and Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway). Both the television broadcaster and the political party (Pensioners Party) were aware that broadcasting the TV ad violated Norwegian law. They were looking for a test case. Norway’s Supreme Court upheld the original penalty (2004). The ECHR disagreed, differentiating political advertising from product advertising, which countries have broad discretion to regulate. The Court recognized arguments from the Norwegian government that television advertising would “reduce the quality of political debate generally” and allowing political advertising on television “would also allow for the financially stronger political groups to obtain a comparative advantage over those of lesser financial means.” Both arguments were rejected as insufficient.

In a decade-long argument the ECHR ruled the Swiss government violated Article 10 (Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland 2001, 2002) by prohibiting an animal rights group from buying ads on local television and radio. When the Swiss Federal Court dismissed the complaint the ECHR took up the case again and found for infringement of the Convention.

The ECHR decision (2009) found “the argument that the broadcasting of the commercial might be seen as unpleasant, in particular by consumers or meat traders and producers, cannot justify its continued prohibition. The Court reiterates in this connection that freedom of expression is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society’.”

Last year political advertising came to Sweden’s commercial broadcasters ahead of European Parliament elections. Later, rules were changed to allow broadcast advertising by national political parties for Swedish elections. Green Party secretary Agneta Börjesson asked for a boycott by all political parties, saying TV ads would “create contempt for politicians.” Sweden is one of the most advertising averse in Europe with strong laws and heavy penalties. During election campaigns you can’t see Sweden for the political posters.

Rules for political advertising in Sweden are equally strict. The obvious prohibitions on ads running in or adjacent to news programs apply. Ceilings were created for number of ads, cost and balance across the political spectrum. Ads are limited to 30 seconds. The strong presence of satellite television, untouched by Swedish law, made restrictions on commercial terrestrial broadcasters irrelevant.

"These things require some really serious money,” said Lithuanian parliamentarian Jurgis Razma to The Baltic Times (April 19). A bill on political advertising under consideration in Lithuania is focused on the cost of it all. Opponents of liberalized rules on political advertising argue that allowing a free flow of money into the electoral process gives advantage to legacy political parties and their supporters. Those with minority points of view are priced out of the market.

It is money that matters. European rules on political advertising – and political speech generally - fall into two rough categories – mostly banned and not quite banned. Political parties are given some amount of access to broadcast media advertising, often through publicly funded ‘spots’ with limited airing. Paid political advertising is often limited to newspapers, outdoor posters and direct mail. Rules in Germany are the most liberal, allowing almost anything. Where paid political advertising on broadcast media is allowed it is highly restricted. No European politician wants an American-style political media advertising frenzy.

The frenzy has arrived anyway. Call it just another digital dividend. Political consultants – advertising people through and through – have discovered the magic of the internet. While the new media strategies of the 2008 US presidential election campaign have been widely discussed and analyzed, these strategies – from social media organizing to YouTube advertising – have moved to the common stage of political campaigns.

Simple broadcast ads and newspaper endorsements are but compliments to complex media plans utilizing every trick in the political consultants’ playbook. Television strategies are based on getting candidates and issues into news programs. A political ad placed only on the Web avoids lingering rules like those for incendiary language. The most outrageous, then, become news items.

“Heaps of money spent on political television advertising is moving online at a rapid pace,” said social media consultant Michael Panetta at a recent conference for political consultants. “Google has been aggressively courting this market for several years.”

Both Google and Microsoft (Bing) aggressively market services for political campaigns. This is not, obviously, limited to the United States. In the UK, the Conservative Party and Labour Party have been in the bidding for ad words hoping to get the message out. Speaking to Guardian technology columnist Rory Cellan-Jones (April 8) a Labour Party spokesperson, unnamed, said the Conservative Party strategy is to “carpet bomb” Google. That, of course, was before the April 15 television debate turned the UK elections on their head. Television, it seems, still matters.

The current UK elections provide a fascinating laboratory for new thinking on political advertising, political speech and the power of it all. In that all-important post-modern way, media has become an actor on its own stage, games changing. The Independent (UK) is marketing its coverage of the raging political campaign with “Rupert Murdoch won’t decide the election – you will.” This led James Murdoch – The Younger – to storm into the editorial office of the Independent (April 21) yelling at editor Simon Kelner, “What are you fucking playing at?” The power of the obvious can be overwhelming.

See also in ftm Knowledge

The Campaign Is On - Elections and Media

Elections campaigns are big media events. Candidates and issues are presented, analyzed and criticized in broadcast and print. Media is now more of a participant in elections than ever. This ftm Knowledge file reports on news coverage, advertising, endorsements and their effect on democracy at work. 53 pages. PDF (April 2010)

Order Here