Thursday, October 27, 2005
Is it wrong to be bad?
"Even if there was a "no-commercial" agreement, I'd air it anyway. This race has already been dirty enough, and filled with enough lies, distortion, and vitriol to make that fair game."
Apparently the Kaine campaign has been reading my stuff. I wrote the above quote on Sept. 14th, and now it looks like it's coming true.
In case you haven't heard, the Kaine campaign is "secretly" polling to see whether using video from the Fairfax untelevised debate would leave a bad taste in voter's mouths. Oh yeah, that's because they signed a "no-use" agreement before the debate. Otherwise it would be a no-brainer, and you would have seen this about three thousand times already. It's the video of Kilgore looking incredibly stupid, and completely outsmarted by Tim Russert.
Would it be unethical to air this video even though they agreed not to? Well, yes. Would it be wrong? Some would make the argument that it wouldn't be.
Kainefolk feel that their positions have been so distorted by the Kilfolk that any means are fair game in winning the election. This includes breaking a promise between politicians (like that hasn't happened two thousand times in the last hour).
My prediction? You are going to see this video in an ad right before the election. Something about "Jerry Kilgore can't make up his mind and isn't that smart. Do you really want him in control of the finances of this state?" Your basic depress the opposition's turnout move. Aired two days before the election, this wouldn't give the Kilfolk time to respond in any meaningful way.
This race is too close not to bend some rules, whether you think it's right or wrong. Both sides have already done it. In the final week and a half of a deadlocked election, nothing is sacred. Even a promise written on paper.
Apparently the Kaine campaign has been reading my stuff. I wrote the above quote on Sept. 14th, and now it looks like it's coming true.
In case you haven't heard, the Kaine campaign is "secretly" polling to see whether using video from the Fairfax untelevised debate would leave a bad taste in voter's mouths. Oh yeah, that's because they signed a "no-use" agreement before the debate. Otherwise it would be a no-brainer, and you would have seen this about three thousand times already. It's the video of Kilgore looking incredibly stupid, and completely outsmarted by Tim Russert.
Would it be unethical to air this video even though they agreed not to? Well, yes. Would it be wrong? Some would make the argument that it wouldn't be.
Kainefolk feel that their positions have been so distorted by the Kilfolk that any means are fair game in winning the election. This includes breaking a promise between politicians (like that hasn't happened two thousand times in the last hour).
My prediction? You are going to see this video in an ad right before the election. Something about "Jerry Kilgore can't make up his mind and isn't that smart. Do you really want him in control of the finances of this state?" Your basic depress the opposition's turnout move. Aired two days before the election, this wouldn't give the Kilfolk time to respond in any meaningful way.
This race is too close not to bend some rules, whether you think it's right or wrong. Both sides have already done it. In the final week and a half of a deadlocked election, nothing is sacred. Even a promise written on paper.
