For the benefit of Pascal123 and anyone else wondering, I’m not sure if it has been paid to be broadcast anywhere, but it’s 1:00 min in length, and was sent to [email protected] labeled as an ad.
18 Comments
Comments are closed.
June 6, 2026
Your Premier Source on Third Parties and Independent Candidates Since 2008
For the benefit of Pascal123 and anyone else wondering, I’m not sure if it has been paid to be broadcast anywhere, but it’s 1:00 min in length, and was sent to [email protected] labeled as an ad.
Comments are closed.
Yes, from an actual opponent of third parties, I reciprocate that all of you are doing a fine job, and much better than ThirdPartyWatch has done all year. You also provided good security to prevent people from voting more than once in your online poll. Good job all around.
The FEC does in fact require an approval/voice-over message from the candidate. This will be added before the ad is run anywhere on TV or radio.
~Bethany
Spence,
Obviously. But this is a blog, not a newspaper. I’v never pretended it was anything more than that–though it is a particularly popular blog as far as third-parties go–3000 hits a day or so.
“Spence, I never rejected criticism. I have, and do, welcome it.”
I was not accusing you of any harshness, Paulie. You’re pretty open-minded. I recognize that.
“He is welcome to criticize the blog, but cut us a freaking break–we make no money on this thing and lose alot of time on it.”
A “pure” journalist might see the extra effort necessary anyway. I know you each write in other publications, but “pure journalism” has a reasonably-expected set of standards, nevertheless.
“Iuno, maybe he does this stuff for a living in real life, and it just bugged him. =/”
GE and me both write for a living, not pure journalism–but he writes financial pieces and I write business or political content. He is welcome to criticize the blog, but cut us a freaking break–we make no money on this thing and lose alot of time on it.
Spence, I never rejected criticism. I have, and do, welcome it.
I case anyone is still wondering, Bethany from Baldwin2008 wrote IPR…
We are actually arguing about that legal disclaimer amongst ourselves at the moment… Someone checked FEC and said that the disclaimer (“I’m Chuck Baldwin and I approve this message”) is not actually a requirement, but something that has become expected. Apparently that became a tradition when controversial ads came out, so that people know which ads are actually from a campaign vs. just from random supporters and not officially a campaign production nor campaign-endorsed message.
Chuck just got back to Pensacola last night after a week away, so he also hasn’t had the chance to do it yet.
The ad is not yet currently being run.
That is a really well done video.
Boy, does he get down to the minutest of details, doesn’t he? Even I have to say that these things don’t bother me that much. Perhaps he actually cares somewhat about quality? What a sin.
I know I’ve had spats with Trent and G.E. (when he was still editor) before over journalistic integrity and bias, but that’s really obvious stuff to most people and they would always throw the “TPW vs. IPR” statistic at me and cordially invite me to get lost, but –
Iuno, maybe he does this stuff for a living in real life, and it just bugged him. =/
Pascal – if you really care that much about stuff like this, you can contact the campaign yourself or start your own third party news site. In my mind, this is kind of stuff really doesn’t matter too much.
And, man, cut us a break. This is none of our full time jobs, we operate on a budget of $0, and considering that and other factors, I’d say we do pretty well. And if not differentiating between an online video ad and a Youtube film is our biggest problem, then once again I’d say we’re doing pretty well.
Well, if I can’t get my questions answered, at least I can play a farewell tune…
http://www.last.fm/music/White+Wash/_/My+friend
an ethical responsibility of professional journalism (or, journalism that hopes to appear professional) is to provide context
Hence the disclaimer paragraph and the opportunity for public comments, such as yours.
See my previous explanation of opt-in media vs. opt-out media. Retyping it in every thread in which the question itself is retyped is not a productive investment of my time.
Sorry, that doesn’t answer this question. Is an online video ad one that pops up somewhere without hitting play?
Trent, I’m sorry you feel that way but I respect your request and will, with regret, honor it. Best Regards –
I wouldn’t say that.
I’m learning new things. For example, if Pascal123 sticks around I can learn the difference between an online video ad and a youtube film.
I forgot to mention another cool thing about IPR: as I learn more, I can change the text and even headline of stories.
Slavno!
Luckily, this is an interactive site, and campaign staff read it. So, they are welcome to answer questions.
an ethical responsibility of professional journalism (or, journalism that hopes to appear professional) is to provide context
How so?
See my previous explanation of opt-in media vs. opt-out media. Retyping it in every thread in which the question itself is retyped is not a productive investment of my time.
Pscal123,
You are welcome, as far as im concerned you’re encouraged, to read elsewhere.
Journalists are permitted to ask questions and are not required to simply publish things handed them verbatim. That is the difference between a news reporting service and a press release printing service. Journalists can ask questions like – in what markets is this airing? Is this intended for online or terrestrial/cable broadcast?
Luckily, this is an interactive site, and campaign staff read it. So, they are welcome to answer questions. (kaliplay, anyone else?)
this could be an online video ad (which is different than a YouTube film)
How so?
Not a lot of content but it is a well done video!
’m not sure if it has been paid to be broadcast anywhere
Journalists are permitted to ask questions and are not required to simply publish things handed them verbatim. That is the difference between a news reporting service and a press release printing service. Journalists can ask questions like – in what markets is this airing? Is this intended for online or terrestrial/cable broadcast?
But, to provide fuller context to IPRs missive:
(1) this video is not airing on any TV station in the United States (at least legally); while the narration by Baldwin himself (unconventionally) meets the candidate voiceprint requirements of 2 U.S.C. 441d, it does not include the legally required 4-second textual disclaimer at the conclusion of the piece
(2) this could be an online video ad (which is different than a YouTube film) but, with the information provided, we just don’t know
If it is #2 we would only be able to find out with appropriate journalistic follow-up and follow-through.