Should broadcasters be required to accept advocacy advertising - Research Paper Example

Should broadcasters be required to accept advocacy advertising? Should broadcasters be required to accept advocacy advertising? “Advocacy advertising is advertising that is used to promote a particular position on an issue. The advertising can target legislation, political subjects, and other issues which are deemed of interest to the public” (What Is Advocacy Advertising?, 2011). Medias quite often make use of advocacy advertising in order to increase their ratings. In my opinion, advocacy advertising is not advisable for media since such tactics will prevent the public from knowing the full dimensions of an issue.

People are getting information through media. It is the duty of the media to convey only the facts to the public. If media has some interests in exaggerating certain issues or hiding certain issues, the public will never get the exact dimensions of such issues. In other words, public may become forced to take wrong stands on issues if they get inadequate information. For example, Obama’s bailout package or healthcare reform policies may have lot of advantages and disadvantages. It is the duty of the media to convey both the merits and demerits of these policies to the public.

If the media tries to focus more on either the merit or the demerit, the public will not get the actual picture about these polices. In an advocacy advertising campaign, “although separate displays may be taken within a campaign are to different audiences, each of these advertisements should communicate the same central message of the campaign”(The Essentials of Advocacy Advertising, n. d). In short, advocacy advertising forces broadcasters to spread the same message to the audience through different types of advertising.

Thus the audience or the public will get the same content in different forms while broadcasters engage in a advocacy advertising. The duty of the broadcasters is to convey the real information to the public rather than spreading exaggerated stories about a particular incident. Broadcasters should never take the role of a judge or jury. They should give that opportunity to the public. Public is watching the programs in order to know the facts. Taking a particular stand on certain issues will force the broadcasters to reveal only the one side of an issue while hiding the other side which is unethical.

Advocacy advertisements force people to change their opinions and views. Broadcasters often campaign for their favorite political party for helping them in winning the elections. Neutral people often change their opinions about certain political parties because of this one sided political campaign. Broadcasters have their own styles and methods to communicate with their viewers. Broadcasters may have different communication styles. For example, CNN and BBC are two prominent news broadcasters in this world.

But the reporting styles of CNN and BBC are entirely different. CNN is an American broadcaster while BBC is a British broadcaster. The ultimate aim of CNN is to protect the interests of the Americans whereas that of BBC is to protect the interests of the British people. When both BBC and CNN have contrasting opinions about certain issues, the viewers will get different stories from these channels. Because of the huge reputation of these channels, the viewers may become confused. To conclude, advocacy advertising may safeguard the interests of the broadcaster, but it can harm the interest of the people. . References 1.

What Is Advocacy Advertising?,(2011). Retrieved from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-advocacy-advertising.htm 2. The Essentials of Advocacy Advertising, (n. d). Retrieved from http://www.blog.reserva-matrix.com/2010/04/14/the-essentials-of-advocacy-advertising/