AL TV stations - 66 days to go

Dear Alabama TV stations,

I have been badgering you in the extreme about "upping your game" in the 2022 elections.

Election time is when Alabamians are most exposed to having their political thinking affected by TV ads, TV news and the social media..

Alabama being controlled by the Republicans results in a skewing of the political messaging that Alabamians receive, particularly by the TV ads, and the political thinking of Alabamians gets more influenced by the skewed messaging from the Republican side.

TV stations receive a lot of revenue from the skewed messaging of the TV ads the stations run for the candidates.

Alabama TV stations may be indifferent to the skewed political messaging that gets purveyed in the TV ads.

Alternatively, TV stations may believe the skewed political messaging the ads purvey is unfortunate, but that business considerations prevent the stations from doing anything to mitigate the skewed political messaging the stations purvey. 

At a minimum it would seem that Alabama TV stations would endeavor to evaluate how "unfortunate" the skewed messaging is for Alabamians in determining the extent to which the stations' business considerations should preclude doing anything to counter the skewed messaging.

Let me give some examples to consider.

A. Vaccine mandates. 

Even before the 2022 elections got into swing, Gov. Ivey, AG Marshall and GOP legislators in Montgomery took strenuous positions and actions against vaccine mandates. Now, with 2022 elections underway, Republican candidates are vehemently campaigning against vaccine mandates. The below ad of Mike Durant is an example.

Alabamians are deluged with anti-mandate ads and other anti-mandate messaging that conveys that citizens are free to make whatever personal decision they want about getting vaccinated, and citizens should not be subjected to any cost or penalty if they choose not to get vaccinated.

Alabamians receive virtually no contra messaging to the effect that, under the social contract of government and the rule of law, citizens may be subjected to a cost or penalty if they choose not to get vaccinated, and government officials are charged with public responsibility and authority to make decisions about whether costs or penalties should be imposed on citizens who choose not to get vaccinated. A number of factors weigh in the making of that decision, and public officials have a duty to evaluate and weigh those factors and reach a decision about what is in the best interest for the health and welfare of Alabamians.

As I set out in  Dear Gov. Ivey re controlling COVID and Nonfeasance, malfeasance or moral depravity, I contend that Gov. Ivey, AG Marshall and GOP legislators in Montgomery failed in their duty to undertake that weighing of the factors and reaching a decision that they concluded was in the best interest of the health and welfare of Alabamians. 

Instead, I contend Gov. Ivey, AG Marshall and GOP legislators in Montgomery reached their decision based on what they determined would be to their personal political advantage, and disregarding what was in the best interest of the health and welfare of Alabamians. 

The foregoing is my opinion and what I think.

Those in charge of TV stations should consider the matter and decide what their opinion is and what they think.

If they do not agree with my opinion and with what I think, that is fine. If they disagree, it would be nice to hear an explanation of why they disagree.

They should keep in mind, if my opinion and what I think is correct, that means Gov. Ivey, AG Marshall and GOP legislators in Montgomery did not act in the best interests of the health and welfare of Alabamians, and Alabamians died or were otherwise harmed in the past, and the same may happen in the future because Alabama officials fail again to make decisions in the best interest of the health and welfare of Alabamians.

Further, the TV stations should keep in mind that the next 66 days will have a high level attention of Alabamians to the candidates' ads and provide a high level of opportunity and capacity to influence the political thinking of Alabamians. These particularly includes inculcating thinking that citizens are free to make whatever personal decision they want about getting vaccinated, and citizens should not be subjected to any cost or penalty if they choose not to get vaccinated.

By the same token, the next 66 days are when TV stations can have a high level of potential to influence the political thinking of Alabamians in a different direction, to wit, citizens should not consider themselves free to make whatever personal decision they want about getting vaccinated, and citizens may legitimately be subjected to a cost or penalty if they choose not to get vaccinated.

If TV stations agree with my opinion and what I think, and TV stations do not try to inform Alabamians of their opinion about a past failure of Alabama officials to make decisions in the best interest of the health and welfare of Alabamians and that such failure may continue in the future, I will leave it to the TV stations to wrestle with their journalistic consciences about the matter.

B.  Other examples

The theme of this is that election time is when Alabamians are most exposed to having their political thinking affected by TV ads, TV news and the social media; election time is when TV stations should evaluate how "unfortunate" (or not) how the political thinking of Alabamians is being affected by the TV ads and the social media; election time is when TV stations have special opportunity and capacity to influence the political thinking in another direction if the TV stations determine that would be beneficial for the politics and governance of Alabama; that election time right now is the next 66 days and if Alabama TV stations don't focus on this during the next 66 days, the remainder of the time until election day on November 8th, will afford too little and too late for the TV stations. After November 8th the TV stations will be reduced to "nada" during 2023.

With the examples indicated below, please (i) think about the messaging that is being done by the TV ads on the issue in question, (ii) as to the issue involved, evaluate the importance to Alabamians of something different from the status quo, and (iii) think about whether the messaging makes the "solving" of the problem harder because it hardens the political thinking of Alabamians about the issue in an unhelpful way, and whether alternative messaging would be helpful.

1. Critical race theory, etc. [added 3/21/22]
Here is Kay Ivey's “Today, the left teaches kids to hate America"  video.

The TV stations know how much the Kay Ivey campaign pays them to run the ad.

The ad is connected to the difficult tangle regarding critical race theory, "divisive concepts", and Social Emotional Learning. This tangle interferes with the carrying out of education in Alabama, and the tangle needs working through to lessen or eliminate its interference with carrying out education.

The TV stations can judge how the video affects the thinking of viewers, how it contributes to political polarization and impairment of understanding and communication, and whether, ultimately, the ad is unhelpful to the working through of the aforesaid tangle regarding critical race theory, "divisive concepts", and Social Emotional Learning. 

The TV stations can decide whether they think it would be helpful to interview Kay Ivey to discuss how she thinks Alabamians can best work through the aforesaid tangle regarding critical race theory, "divisive concepts", and Social Emotional Learning. If Kay Ivey declines such an interview, the TV stations have the option editorialize on the matter for the benefit of their viewers and ultimately for the benefit of Alabama.