Blake's Think Tank

Steven Stark of the Boston Phoenix thinks so.  He writes, “Today, all a presidential candidate really needs to do is film a few commercials, screen them for the reporters and networks who will disseminate them, and then file them away on a shelf. TV ads in general elections don’t sway the masses anymore. All they do is waste a lot of money. And Obama, who has already started advertising on TV, will certainly be able to waste the largest amount in recent history. As they say, easy come, easy go.”

But in the age of the political consultant who is paid based on a percentage of the ad buys (why candidates don’t just negotiate a straight fee, I don’t know), television ads won’t decline despite their ineffectiveness and cost,  Star continues, “Consultants certainly have a reason for promoting the influence of TV ads; without them, their fees would go down.”

And, of course, if one candidate puts ads on televison the other candidate invariably has to do the same. But in this new media age, especially one that allows for mass dissemination of information quickly via the Internet, do television (especially when you consider TiVo and DVR) truly influence voters?  I can’t say, but Barack Obama is going to spend a ton money in the hopes that they do.