I don't have any problem with the ads on the Times website, except for two things: first of all, we're getting slapped with a tax increase....are these frivolous ads a wise use of money at this point in time? And two, even with the ads, is there a need for the mayor to get his face on every bit of advertising for the city? Is he really advertising the CITY, or is he advertising HIMSELF, on our dime? I'm sure I'm getting flamed for this, but its an honest question and I just wanted see what you people thought..
No flaming from me. I, for one, would not be comfortable with my name and face on everything. However, I think it probably goes along with being a politician.
I would imagine that if we did some research, we would find most every Mayor, Governor, Representative ect.ect.ect does the same. As to the cost? I am unsure what, if any, cost there is....many media outlets give up a small amount of adv space for public service type ads. Does this fall into that category? I honestly don't know. Does it show our city in a favorable light (no pun intended) probably. Does it bring people into city to see the light show? Maybe....I have heard people talk about it at the store I work for, and they said they were coming to Scranton to see lights.
I guess the bottom line will be.......if you like (insert whoever the politician of the day is) you will like the ad, if you don't like them, you will not like the ad.
I am a supporter of Mayor Doherty. I do not agree with everything he has said and done, but I support him and the office he holds. And I have, once or twice, asked him "What were you thinking?"
I'm an old-fashioned girl who prefers to actually read the newspaper, so no, I have not seen the advertisements on the Times website. But to make a comment on the 'lights' at Nay Aug, they are wonderful. It warms my heart to see that many people coming and going from the park in the evening. It's also nice to see that some of the neighbors up there have taken to putting up decorations in their yards to extend the Christmas experience down the street.
Now if we can just get that mayor of ours to get us some SNOW !! Ugh, what is he THINKING having Christmas without snow??
Those ads are crazy cheap. Putting his face on them falls into the "victor goes the spoils" category. Every politician could do it if they want. The ads help promote the city. I'll bet those ads cost less per year than all of Pilchesky's lawsuits.
Art Gordon wrote: Those ads are crazy cheap. Putting his face on them falls into the "victor goes the spoils" category. Every politician could do it if they want. The ads help promote the city. I'll bet those ads cost less per year than all of Pilchesky's lawsuits.
The ads are fine. If they bring some more people into Scranton, then they served their purpose. But the mayor always has to get his name and face featured prominently on any ads, which to me is a thinly-veiled way to keep campaigning for his eventual run at a higher political office. If he wants to run those types of ads, he should use his own campaign contributions, not taxpayer money.
Your probably right but I think it should apply to all politicians. I have sure seen (I am sure you have too) my share of all politicians getting as much face time as they can, no matter which side of the political fence they stand on. I doubt those rules wil change any time soon as all politicians benefit from them. They are basically harmless, annoying at times, but harmless.
IHavehadenoughofhaters wrote: Your probably right but I think it should apply to all politicians. I have sure seen (I am sure you have too) my share of all politicians getting as much face time as they can, no matter which side of the political fence they stand on. I doubt those rules wil change any time soon as all politicians benefit from them. They are basically harmless, annoying at times, but harmless.
I agree. This isn't just about Doherty to me, I'm not Joe Pilchesky. I don't care if its Chris Doherty, George W. Bush, Abe Lincoln, or Janet Evans (I'd even rather Doherty than Janet, at least Doherty might have a chance at attracting some people, Evans would be more suited to officiating a WWE wrestling match).
I think it was Bill Clinton's advisor's Paul Begala and Skellator (oh, I mean James Carville) who more or less pioneered the idea that politicans never stop campaigning. You see it in what President Bush does today...all be it none-too-successfully. To that end, what Mayor Doherty does isn't much of a suprise. If anything, it's probably the mark of a shrewd politician.
Now do I think it's right? That's a different story. Personally while I understand the reasoning behind it, I can't say I agree with it all the time. I'd rather see more advocacy for the city sans any politician, but as others have pointed out, this is how the game is played these days.
__________________
Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.
Well, someone said every politician should benefit from these cheap adverts.
I would much rather seeing a tall, somewhat handsome, bespeckled businessman selling me on the attractiveness of his city on these advertisements, than to see that Scranton Piehole hollering at me from an ad for the how-to-get-the-stick-outta-yer-butt lubricant.
I just keep seeing that picture of her the Trib uses - that one where she looks like she is trying to stop the drool from slipping out of her mouth with her shoulders raised up around her ears - yeah, that one.
