1 of 1

No

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 2

to be portrayed as someone other than who they are, they will be misleading the viewers into believing something that is not true. And the candidate will be forced to live a lie. Is this really a bad thing?

Yes, it is, because the viewers, the people - have the right to see their candidate's true colours. They should be protected from being misinformed about someone who they are choosing to represent them in government.

The concern isn't that the movie is being treated as a campaign advertisement, but that it is portraying an untruth to the people. If the movie is a true factual depiction of the candidate, then the facts will speak for themselves, good or bad, and there is no bias. But if even one fact is distorted, then the production is guilty of changing the facts to suit some of the viewers.

So, the onus is not on the government to regulate the production of a full-length movie about a candidate as if it was a campaign advertisement. The onus is on the candidate to show himself or herself in truth. Even if the movie producers want to change a single aspect of this truth, the candidate should demand that only the truth be portrayed. If they accept changes that are not true, then the candidate should prepare to resign because the people won't accept the deception.

Campaign persuasions are based on promises and wishful thinking, where the movie would promise to deliver facts. The movie viewer will be able to make their own opinions and decisions about that person from what they see, and that may be a better portrayal of the truth than a campaign promise.

Learn more about this author, Ronnie Dauber.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2

Add your voice

Know something about Should a full-length movie about a candidate for office be regulated as if it were a campaign advertisement??
We want to hear your view. Write now!