The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has produced a radio ad for broadcast in 13 Republican held House districts. In the Philadelphia district served by Jim Gerlach KYW-AM is refusing to air this ad.
The advertisement features a George W. Bush impersonator pretending to be talking to the Republican representative and thanking him for standing by the administration’s agenda on behalf of Big Oil and the “Grand Oil Party.” But apparently that’s too much for the tender sensibilities of KYW’s audience, at least according to its general manager, David Yadgaroff.
“As an all-news station, we were concerned that our listeners would have been misled by usage of an impersonator in the creative delivery.”
Were I a Philly resident, I would be insulted by Yadgaroff’s condescension. Does he really believe that his audience is too stupid to figure out that this is a political ad? More importantly, does he have such disrespect for his community that he would engage in wholesale censorship based on such a disparaging assertion? Apparently so.
I don’t know that I agree. I think it is an abhorrent practice to use voice impersonators in a political campaign on radio. It stinks of the Obama smear attempts. Not every one will believe it, but some will. I’d feel much less reticent about a t.v. ad wherein the impersonator is obvious. Nope, even if KYW-AM ran it, I’d find it distasteful.
I’m not sure how anyone could listen to that ad and think that the impersonator sounds anything like the real Bush. It is clearly a parody in both tone and content.
Worst case…they simply add a disclaimer that says celebrity voice impersonated
I usually agree with your analysis of things Newscorpse, but I think you’ve got it wrong on this one. Allowing political ads to use voice impersonations would open a huge can of worms. Once you allow it you are on the slippery slope.
Say you allow these voice impersonated ads to go on. At the end of the ad someone in a speedy, low-voice states ‘celebrity voice impersonator, not meant to represent the actual person,’ much like the disclaimer portion of a radio ad for your local auto dealership. Nothing good will become of this. The only logical way that anyone would ever do this would be for attack ad purposes. Political commercial airtime is a different beast than your run-of-the-mill commercial airtime.
Imagine a scenario where candidate A, who is pro-choice, is impersonated in a radio ad saying “I endorse the killing of the unborn.” Obviously I am taking this to the extreme but I hope I’m making my point. It should be obvious to average-Joe that it is a harsh negative campaign ad, yet you never know. You are putting the radio stations between a rock and a hard place. Here is another extreme example, what would prevent someone from doing a vaguely ebonics-style Obama ad? Couldn’t imagine it happening…..?
Just saying…
I don’t think the examples you provide apply to this ad. There are other reasons to decline to air an ad. One of them is if it is deliberately deceptive or untrue. If an ad goes too far in misrepresenting an opponent or issue it can be rejected on those grounds. And if anyone did an ad using ebonics, or something else that was deliberately intended to insult, they would pay a price at the polls.
Ads using impersonators are not new. This one is typical in that it presents an absurd exaggeration of the target. It is designed specifically to prevent anyone from thinking it is actually Bush. In circumstances like this I don’t think it’s appropriate for the station to make an editorial decision to the detriment of the advertiser.
There are probably gray areas, as you suggest, but I don’t think this is one. And I don’t think decisions should made on the basis of what might occur at some other time with other facts.
Mark a few points for clarity:
1) I love this site and the work you put into it. I should have made it clear that my comments were not indicative of what you usually say, that is, my instance of agreement with you is now 99.9999999999999999999991% of the time.
2) You say you can’t see how anyone would take this seriously, yet you run a web site that focuses on FOX News. While the viewership is not growing and is aging rapidly, it still has a viewership. I am sure you would understand when I say, I can’t possibly see how anyone takes FOX News seriously. After the Shrub was re-elected I will never again under estimate the capacity of citizens of my country for doing the most idiotic thing possible.
3) There are a hundred ways to parody Bush. Telling the simple truth, for instance.
Thanks. And I think you make good points.
I also don’t see how people take Fox News seriously, but the big difference between that and this ad is that the ad was not meant to be taken seriously. As ridiculously ignorant as Fox News is, they do intend to be taken seriously.
I totally agree with #3.
It’s really a lame ad. IS this the best they can do? Fire those lame ad executives!!
GEEEEZZ I can do better than that all by myself!!