|
"Our view is that the prohibition does not apply where there is no advocacy of a particular viewpoint"
So he's saying the government-produced ads are void of imbalance? I don't know if I have seen any of these ads-presented-as-news, but I find that to be highly doubtful mainly because it's impossible.
But let's say ads could be magically produced that were perfectly balanced with pros and cons, weighted for accuracy and value, on a subject - why is this even necessary? Sounds like the government is trying to avoid press conferences by presenting their position (and mysteriously claiming it is not their position, but rather a balanced view on the subject) without informing the public that it is the gov't who is presenting it and without enabling a method of interaction by the public.
I oppose the gov't using tax payer money to pointedly remove public interaction on policy discussion (which is the same thing as removing all discussion).
|