Advertising, we have noted, has one

Advertising, we have noted, has one fundamental weakness as a form of
political communication. To the receiver of the message it is perceived as
being, if not necessarily ‘propaganda’ (in the negative sense of that term),
then ‘biased’ and partial. Regardless of whether or not the audience agrees
or disagrees with the message being advertised, he or she is aware that it isa
politically loaded message, reflecting the interests, ideas and values of the
sponsor. For this reason, the effectiveness of political advertising as a means
of persuasion will always be limited. Knowing that a message is ‘committed’
allows the reader, viewer or listener to take a distance from it – to resist and
reject it. This has not, as we have seen, prevented political advertising from
playing an increasingly important part in the political process, but it has
encouraged the view that other forms of communication may be more
effective in transmitting the desired messages. In particular, political actors
have come to believe in the importance of ‘free media’ in achieving their
goals, as opposed to the paid-for variety (Levy, 1989). By ‘free media’
I mean those spaces and outlets in which political actors may gain exposure and coverage, without having to pay media organisations for the
privilege