Trends are emerging in the current US presidential election that point to a further deepening of sophistry and deceptiveness in political advertising from both major parties. This is one US export we should avoid like the plague.
Look at these two examples of current US ads. Both make bold claims against the credibility of their political opponent that will be amplified as facts within the respective social echo chambers of each party.
Note the disclaimer that media outlets are legally required to run these ads as provided by the office of the authorising party, regardless of content – no doubt a factor in WCNC launching this fact-checking programming in the first instance.
Surely it would be better to prevent misleading and untruthful advertising going to air in the first place rather than trying to correct misinformation after the fact.
So, what can (and should) we do in Australia about ensuring truth in political advertising? Is it even possible to bring about a change that would compel message integrity and accuracy while still allowing politicians to frame their vision for the future compellingly?
I believe we can and must if we are to protect our democracy.
Truth in advertising – an unequal application of the law.
The fact that political parties and their affiliates are not subject to the same tests for truthfulness as commercial advertisers has long been a source of dismay for me. Recent figures show that I’m not alone, with The Australia Institute polling showing that 90% of Australians are now fully behind the notion of mandated truth in political advertising.
Why is this so hard?
Legislated truth in advertising has long been resisted by politicians and their affiliates because they feel it would curtail their ability to float concepts that may be unprovable – such as an election promise to, say, end child poverty within a certain timeframe, or boost productivity within key sectors of the economy.
But truth in political advertising would not obviate sweeping statements of political intent. We need politicians who can articulate a vision. It’s just that these statements would need to be clearly framed as ‘ambitions’, ‘intentions’, or opinions rather than promises that are often simply impossible to underwrite.
This kind of qualification would, initially, be painful and time consuming for political parties. But they’d soon adapt and the impacts on the standard of political debate may well be profound.
Who decides what’s true?
One of the biggest challenges to the introduction of legislation mandating truth in political advertising is not the legislation itself, it’s the enforcement of it. Here are the reasons why:
- Political campaigns are highly tactical. The sheer volume and requisite speed of approvals, along with media fragmentation, would require the application of a lot of skilled people who understand advertising standards; and
- Fact checking is, of itself, vulnerable to subjectivity. RMIT’s risible recent efforts are a case in point.
Serious governance would be vital. This would need to include much greater clarity over the distinction between public information and political campaigns. It would also require investment and competent management – both in short supply right now – to be above and beyond claims of political bias.
Why is this important now?
The polarisation of opinion fuelled by social media is pushing otherwise sensible people toward more extreme beliefs and prejudices. An unchecked mistruth can be circulated and reinforced as an immutable fact among a vast number of people with eyewatering speed.
For this reason, the need for political advertising to be subject to the same requirements as commercial advertising is now vital.
Consider the immediate future of the political advertising:
- Budgets are getting bigger. Projections from GroupM, one of the world’s largest media agency groups, suggest that political advertising revenue within the USA will reach $15.9 billion in the 2024 election year (I may be an ad man, but even I can see the opportunity cost of donations funding media campaigns instead of building hospitals or research or schools). Imagine seeing this kind of ad-funding explosion in Australia. We’re already overexposed to election ads without any more budget being added.
- It’s not just the parties. In the US, at least as much advertising is placed by affiliates as is bought by the candidates themselves. Bloomberg, MAGA Committee, The National Republican Senatorial Committee, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the National Rifle Association are all contributors to the major parties. Here, it’s the unions, employer bodies, Clive Palmer, Get Up and The Australian Christian Lobby. And increasingly, it is these entities that do the communications ‘dirty work’ for the major parties. It’s a free country, and democracy means we must suffer this embuggerance as part of the deal, but these groups must also be subject to the same advertising standards as your business and ours.
- “News” as advertorial. Remember when news media sought to achieve balance and objectivity? Now, specific media outlets are clearly identifiable for their biases. In America, both CNN and Fox News make no secret of which side of politics they’re on.
In Australia, media bias is just as evident, with the ABC, Nine’s press outlets and The Guardian for Labour and the Murdoch press for the LNP (with the possible exception of The Australian, which at least carries the voices of opposing views on issues of significance).
Where advertorial masquerades as “news”, broadcasters and publishers should be called to account, in the same way that unannounced commercial advertorials were legislated against in 1999.
- Social media. As you’d expect, the major US parties have their best and brightest measuring your search habits and shaping ‘truths’ to reinforce the biases you’ve already (consciously or otherwise) adopted. For an extreme example of how pernicious this can be in febrile political mediascape, look no further than the fantastical views of Republican Congresswoman, Marjorie Taylor Greene, who was ‘friendless’ (donor-less) until she called for “a bullet to the head” of then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi while also floating the idea of hanging Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Now, she has posited that ‘they’ (in this case, the Biden administration) have the power to malevolently influence weather patterns – specifically the current spate of wild weather hitting the Gulf states. Her ‘flood’ of donors know she’s nuts, but it suits their agenda to have her influencing a small, disenfranchised group of motivated voters caught up in an echo-chamber of malcontent.
We haven’t sunk to that level in Australia yet, but we’re not far behind. Right now, in Queensland, there’s a deepfake scandal targeting the current Premier and a lie being run about the LNP dismantling healthcare funding, again, in an attempt to sway voters.
Social media is by far the most difficult medium to monitor and moderate for truthfulness. But we must find a way – even if imperfect.
Where are we now?
That it was left to federal ‘Teal’ independent Member for Warringah, Zali Steggall, to introduce a Private Members’ Bill to prevent voters being misled at election time is sub-optimal. But it has contributed to Special Minister of State, Don Farrell being briefed to try and negotiate a way forward for new legislation. But this is where politics rears its ugly head again. Convincing Zali’s superbly funded teal fellow independents to accept caps on donations and spending will prove nigh-on impossible. Catch 22.
But that shouldn’t actually matter. Opposition leader, Peter Dutton signalled his support for change earlier this year. With some shared will, this should be a rare example of positive bipartisanship in the interests of the nation.
Worthy of activism.
So, here’s my little piece of activism. An urgent call for us all to get vocal about truth in political advertising – not in the middle of an election campaign when politicians haven’t got time to scratch themselves. Call your member of parliament. Mobilise your friends to do the same. Let’s see if we can get legislated ‘truth in political advertising’ in the statutes, if not for next year’s election, at least in time for 2028.