ESPN will be selling more of it’s advertising to political campaigns this fall, because of high demand from candidates, political parties and super PACs (Source). Football is a ratings bonanza, so it makes sense that there would be demand by campaigns for ad time on stations like ESPN. However, not everyone is happy about the upcoming transition (Source). Personally, I won’t mind; I’ve been mixing politics and football for years by sending candidates to football games on Friday night (in Texas, it’s where the people are).
It never fails that each election cycle there is the usual sanctimonious blather about how horrible negative ads are. As a hack, it annoys me to no end. This year an Iowa county leader is calling for a moratorium on attack ads. The New York Times has a chart of ad spending and what percentage has been negative:
There’s a reason negative ads exist: candidates aren’t going to tell you these things about themselves. And yet for all the worry over the effect of negative ads, they are not that detrimental to the body politic. Indeed, a new study suggests that negative ads are more informative and have a modest positive effect on political engagement (Source).
It’s a good thing these folks didn’t live in a more civil era.