SPEAKER_05 0:00

There's absolutely no regulation that requires political ads to be truthful.

SPEAKER_06 0:05

I think everybody needs to just take a beat with these ads, maybe, and just think a little bit about what we're all doing. I'm Michelle.

SPEAKER_05 0:13

I've spent over 25 years in media and education. I'm Gina. I've spent over 15 years in tech and policy. We met because we were both working to make social media a better place to be from different angles.

SPEAKER_06 0:24

I had just started Meta's Global Information Ecosystem Program.

SPEAKER_05 0:27

And I was the executive director of the National Association for Media Literacy Education.

SPEAKER_06 0:33

We became friends because we're both obsessed with media. News, books, films, TV, and yes, digital content. We talked for hours about it, not always agreeing, but always learning from each other. There is so much media these days. And we wanted to create a space to process it and work through what it all means for our culture, our politics, and how we understand the world. And we're hoping you do too.

SPEAKER_05 0:56

This is Did You See with Gina and Michelle.

SPEAKER_06 0:59

Hey Michelle. Hi, Gina. Happy Media Literacy Week. Happy Media Literacy Week! Woohoo! It is now the 12th annual U.S. Media Literacy Week from October 26th to the 30th, which is hard to believe. It's already the 12th one. Now, the mission of Media Literacy Week is to highlight the power of media literacy education and its essential role in education all across the United States.

SPEAKER_05 1:26

And this week is hosted by the National Association for Media Literacy Education, namely. When I was the executive director of the organization, we launched Media Literacy Week in 2015. Wow. At that time, Canada was organizing Media Literacy Week, and namely members were constantly asking me when are we going to do this in the US? And finally, I got really tired of not knowing. And so we launched in 2015 with a logo and a landing page on a website. And now it's this enormous initiative with people and organizations all over the country participating. It makes me so proud to see how far it has come. And really, really, truly, it's one of my career highlights.

SPEAKER_06 2:11

I mean, it's amazing. You should be proud. And anytime Canada's leading the way for the United States to follow, I love as well. Absolutely. For those of you who don't know, I'm a proud Namely board member, and this organization is doing incredible work, providing resources, support, and community to K through 12 teachers across the country. If you want to help support educators who are on the front lines of helping young people thrive in our very complicated and ever-changing media landscape, check them out at namely.org and we'll put the link in the show notes.

SPEAKER_05 2:43

So, Gina, did you see that Joseph Gordon Levitt has some strong opinions about artificial intelligence? I saw something about that. He was at the UN General Assembly, right? Yes. So he's been speaking up about the dangers of AI. And I thought I'd give a little background because it's kind of interesting what led him here. Yeah. So for those of you who don't know, Joseph Gordon Levitt is a prolific actor and filmmaker. He got his big break in the mid-90s when he was cast in the sitcom Third Rock from the Sun. And since then, he's been in just a plethora of films, everything from 10 Things I Hate About You to 500 Days of Summer to Snowden to the new Batman movies. I've been paying close attention to him since 2009, though, when he started a really, really cool open collaborative production company called Hit Record. It's really, really innovative. So the mission at Hit Record is to inspire creativity through collaboration. They make videos and stories and visual art, and it's like a crowdsourcing cool platform for production. One of their core values is that people should get paid fairly for the value they create. This is what it says on their website about this value. Whenever a piece of media makes money, we believe the creators deserve to share that money. So hit record has always and will always compensate people when their creative contribution is monetized. Okay. So this led to in 2023, he wrote an opinion piece in the Washington Post titled, If Artificial Intelligence Uses Your Work, it should pay you. So he came out and said, quote, generative AI cannot generate anything at all without first being trained on massive troves of data, it then recombines. Who produces that training data? People do. And those people deserve compensation. So it seems like the first time he really came out about AI was about this concept of whose work is being used to create the AI, right? Yep. So then in September of 2025, he appeared in the New York Times opinion section in a video that was warning against the dangers of Meta's AI chatbot for kids specifically. He says, I'm a dad, one of my kids is eight years old. It's hard to describe how angry this makes me. It's not known how many kids have already been exposed to this kind of synthetic intimacy. And that's why I'm making this video because when you see horrible things like this happening, it can seem like these big businesses are just too powerful, but they are not. In 2025, he co-created the Creators Coalition of AI. And that is a hub where people across the entertainment industries can discuss how AI is affecting entertainment and creative work. And since then, he has testified at the Utah State Capitol in favor of stronger AI regulation. He's lobbied for the repeal of Section 230. He was named to Times 100 Most Influential People in AI list. And if you follow him on Instagram at hit recordjoe, he is consistently posting on AI. Two things that are really important to note about him is that he is married to Tasha McAuley, who founded and runs the tech company Fellow Robots. She was on OpenAI's board from 2018 to 2023. And in 2023, she and three other board members voted to fire CEO Sam Altman. And when he was reinstated, she left the board. He was also part of the two dialogue conversations with Peter Thiel. And that dialogue is that private invitation-only society founded in 2006. So he came out about his involvement with those conversations by saying he was in a room with a lot of people he didn't agree with, but that he wanted to be in the room for these discussions essentially. So he's like all over this space.

SPEAKER_06 7:06

Okay, that's kind of interesting. I'm surprised to hear that he was at the Peter Thiel event. I'm not sure what I think about that.

SPEAKER_05 7:12

Yeah, he's really committed to this issue. He doesn't seem to be nervous about speaking up. Him and his wife are in deep with all of this. So he's just made a voice for himself.

SPEAKER_06 7:23

I'm glad that you brought up his wife, Tasha McCauley, because when she was on OpenAI's board, that was when OpenAI was still a nonprofit. And the idea was: can you build an AI company that's ultimately governed by a nonprofit? And what happened then ultimately was that they decided that you can't. And so they dissolved the nonprofit and became just a regular private company. And that's the point where she left.

SPEAKER_05 7:47

If you dive into the birth of Hit Record, he did that with his brother, who has since passed. And why they started it was he was tired of not getting the opportunities he wanted in Hollywood. And he wanted to step up and create his own spaces for artists. And it seems like it's a very similar come from. Like he's trying to protect artists and the industry from the impact of AI. And then obviously, as a father, he's really thinking about it from the eyes of his children. I think he definitely is just this activist in this industry. And I really respect someone who's willing to get out there and say what they feel, even if they're gonna get pushback from their industry.

SPEAKER_06 8:27

I agree with you. And a lot of actors and people in the entertainment space have been pretty vocal about AI on both sides, but I feel like there's been a lot of high-profile support for AI. There was Reese Witherspoon recently who was encouraging women to get on board with AI. Ben Affleck also had an AI production company that he sold recently to Netflix for a lot of money. So it's nice to see that there's some voices from the entertainment space that are pushing back in a really substantive way.

SPEAKER_05 9:01

Yeah, and I think his voice matters. Yeah, sure, there's many people in the industry that are super appreciative of him being out there in front on this.

SPEAKER_06 9:09

Definitely. And he seems to know what he's talking about. Yeah. So that's good. Go, Joseph Gordon Levitt. Did you see, Michelle, that Colin Gosselin, one of the kids in John and Kate Plus Eight, published a memoir about his experience on the show?

SPEAKER_05 9:23

You know, I saw a video of him and I literally started watching it, and then I got really sad because he seems so sad. What's going on there?

SPEAKER_06 9:33

This is a really tough story. We've spoken before about mommy vlogging in our episode about yesteryear and how we're starting to see the first generation of child influencers growing up and talking about their experiences. Colin Gosselin's come out with a new memoir called In the Shadow of Eight, Surviving the Reality of My Childhood, where he talks about his experience being on the show and especially his relationship with his mother. And he details physical and verbal abuse when he didn't perform on camera as he was supposed to. He says that he was isolated from his siblings and his father because John and Kay were separated by this time. And at age 11, he was sent to a residential behavioral health facility for almost two years before he was reunited with his father, who took over custody for him. So it's pretty difficult stuff. That is so painful to hear. It is. And as you can imagine, there's a lot of back and forth happening in the press and also on social media between Colin and his siblings, and also with his mom Kate, who's also very active on social media still. And there's going to be a documentary coming out on Netflix, because of course. Yes, of course. You know, it's hard, but I think it's good to have these stories continue to come out. And I'd be really interested to see how this conversation continues to evolve about the rights of children who appear in their parents' content.

SPEAKER_05 10:58

His story is significantly different than his other siblings, or is he the only one speaking out?

SPEAKER_06 11:04

It sounds like he in particular was isolated from the rest of his siblings, and some of his siblings have come out in support of their mother. Do you think he'll read the book? Me, no. I struggle with these kinds of topics, honestly. I might watch the Netflix documentary. Yes. Yes. But there's something about reading that feels very intimate to me, and I feel like it might be too much for me.

SPEAKER_05 11:29

Hmm. Yeah, I don't know. I definitely would want to watch a Netflix series, but then I was like, do we want to support him by buying his book? You know, this is what I think about. Oh, that's true. I don't know. Uh it's just so sad. There are many ways to support somebody. True. Should we talk about something fun, like political ads? Something fun and not stressful at all. Did you see any of the wild campaign ads for the midterms?

SPEAKER_06 11:55

Well, I live in Germany, so I haven't. But I have seen a lot of the commentary about the wild campaign ads for the midterms.

SPEAKER_05 12:03

Many years ago, I stopped thinking about political ads as relevant. Yeah. I just never assume that anyone can assess a candidate's position and policy through political ads. They just have always just seemed like ridiculous media content to me. And I thought that everyone thought that. And it's so ignorant of me because they're everywhere. It hit me recently, but a couple of years ago, I was watching postseason baseball as I tend to do. And that is the only time that I'm really ever watching broadcast TV regularly. And I was seeing so many ads because it was right before the 2024 presidential election. Right. It made me realize that for some people who are not paying attention to politics and are paying attention to baseball, they are seeing these over and over again. And what influence is it having? There was one ad that played endlessly during the playoffs about Kamala Harris, and I want to play that ad now.

SPEAKER_04 13:09

Kamala supports taxpayer-funded sex changes for prisoners. Surgery.

SPEAKER_08 13:14

For prisoners. For prisoners. Every transgender inmate in the prison system would have access.

SPEAKER_04 13:21

Hell no, I don't want my taxpayer dollars going to that.

SPEAKER_10 13:23

Kamala supports transgender sex changes in jail with our money. Kamala even supports letting biological men compete against our girls in their sports. Kamala is for they them. President Trump is for you. I'm Donald J. Trump, and I approve this message.

SPEAKER_05 13:39

These types of ads are so extreme that the purpose of political ads is to persuade you that there's absolutely no regulation that requires political ads to be truthful. Right. But then I realize, oh my God, I'm wrong. People were listening to these messages. It is somewhat alarming to me that people don't realize what political ads are doing, or they do realize it and yet it still influences them.

SPEAKER_06 14:10

Well, it's hard. I mean, if you're watching a baseball game, how many commercial breaks are there in a three-hour period that you're just constantly hearing these messages? It's hard not to let that soak in somehow. No, it's impossible.

SPEAKER_05 14:24

You see it over and over again and you start to hear it, it starts to become ingrained in your thought process. From a media literacy perspective, political ads are a relatively easy analysis evaluation exercise because of how extreme they are and not subtle. Yeah. So if you think about some of the core questions that we want people to be thinking about when they're analyzing media, like who made the ad, who paid for the ad, how are they communicating the message? When it comes to political ads, those are usually pretty clear, right? Because of how not subtle they are. Yeah. The action they want you to take is pretty obvious. So obvious. And the way in which they are constructed, right? The tone that's used, the words, the editing, the music, trying to use your emotions to sway you. A lot of political ads use fear. And they're very simple in their messaging in a lot of ways, right? Because they're short, they're emotional, they're persuasive, which makes it seem like we, as viewers, as voters, need to be a lot better at understanding what they're trying to do.

SPEAKER_06 15:41

It's so interesting that you're talking about political ads, which are essentially coming from people who are meant to be our leaders. And the way we're talking about how they communicate with voters is a lot of the same language that we use in media literacy to talk about what you should be cautious of, messages that are overly simple, messages that use fear or extreme emotions. That's what is often taught to people. If you see this, that's kind of a red flag.

SPEAKER_05 16:15

Isn't it so true, though, that political ads are like the first clickbait in some ways? That's true. I know it's not exactly the same thing because we're not really clicking anywhere, but still, it feels like it's that energy. Well, this has been a wild season for political ads. So we thought we would talk about a few specific ones and then break down some of the changes in the political ad landscape since the advent of social media, because we know that that has changed the game a little bit. A couple of interesting facts about this particular moment in time with the midterms is that the New York Times did an analysis of campaign ads and they found that less than one dollar of every $100 in Republican television ad spending goes towards commercials that mention the word Trump. And that Democrats are spending $20 of every $100 on ads that mention Trump. That's interesting. So it seems as if the trend that Republicans are trying to distance themselves from the president and Democrats are kind of on the attack. And Trump has been speaking a lot about pretend I'm on the ballot. And if the campaign ads are reflective of anything, it seems that the Republicans are trying to distance themselves a little bit.

SPEAKER_06 17:39

Yeah. And the Democrats are pretending he's on the ballot.

SPEAKER_05 17:42

Yes, yeah. There's this funny story that came out about a Republican super PAC trying to influence a Senate race in Maine. And they spent thousands of dollars running an attack ad in the wrong Portland. Oh my gosh. So it targeted voters in Oregon for the Senate race in Maine. Oh my gosh.

SPEAKER_06 18:05

So oops. I think everybody needs to just take a beat with these ads, maybe, and just think a little bit about what we're all doing.

SPEAKER_05 18:12

I definitely think that you want to target the people in the state who are voting for your candidate. I don't know. That seems like a no-brainer to me. Okay, so let's start listening to some ads. The first one we are going to listen to is one from Steve Hilton. Hilton is the Republican Party's candidate for governor of California. He has never held elected office. So just want to give a little background on him for those who don't know a lot about him. He was born in London to Hungarian parents who fled communism. And he worked in politics and advertising and business and was the head of strategy for British Prime Minister David Cameron. So he moved to California in 2012. He became a U.S. citizen in 2021. And he's best known for hosting The Next Revolution on Fox News from 2017 through 2023. He also wrote a book called Cali Failure, in which he called California America's worst-run state. And here he is, newly U.S. citizen in California running for governor. We are going to see an ad called Just Try It, California. So the ad takes place in a bedroom with two young women on the bed facing each other. Both of the young women have brightly colored hair, piercings, and there's an LGBTQ pride flag prominently behind them. The ad unfolds with sexual innuendo, and we don't realize until the end that they are talking about filling out an absentee ballot for Steve Hilton. Let's take a listen.

SPEAKER_07 20:10

Don't be nervous. It's not that bad. I've just never done anything like this before. Like, what if my dad finds out? Just try it. Look, give me your hand. Close your eyes. And I'll do all the work. See. I think I think I liked it.

SPEAKER_06 20:45

Now look at. Full disclosure, I have kind of a connection with Steve Hilton. His wife was a boss of mine at Uber, and we worked together as well at Meta. And I have to be honest that she's had a very profound and positive impact on me, my career, my life. That said, I find this ad completely repulsive in so many ways. And it sounds worse. Like just listening to it without seeing it is worse. And just to be clear, what one of the girls is encouraging the other one to do, she's actually taking her hand and filling out the ballot for Steve Hilton. And then at the end, she's saying to lick the envelope, basically to send it in. It's so ridiculous. So ridiculous.

SPEAKER_05 21:27

And clearly, this ad is trying to create shock value. It's trying to appeal to Gen Z. It's trying to reach liberals that would never have ever considered voting for a Republican. But the result of all of this is that it ended up really angering conservatives. They really were concerned about the sexual innuendo. They were concerned about the pride flag. It kind of backfired on him with who he's trying to get to vote for him. But It's got people talking about Steve Hilton.

SPEAKER_06 22:03

Yes. And I think that is the goal of this ad. We're talking about a Republican candidate for governor in California who hasn't had a Republican governor since Arnold Schwarzenegger. So he kind of has to do what he has to do to make a splash. And I think that was his strategy here.

SPEAKER_05 22:20

I think it worked. It really goes into the category of no press is bad press because people were talking about Steve Hilton. It brought him to my mind, you know, I'm not in California and it made me think about him. And so this idea of do they know it's gonna backfire and is that part of the plan? Right. Is something to consider as you listen to some of the others that we're going to take a look at today.

SPEAKER_06 22:46

There were also some questions about whether these young women were even real or whether this was just completely AI generated.

SPEAKER_05 22:52

I did see that they have come out and said they were real actors. But the AI thing is important to think about in general because now we're not only fighting the lack of truthfulness, now we don't know if things are AI generated.

SPEAKER_06 23:04

Yeah. I mean, also considering that these were young women, I don't know if I would prefer that they were AI generated rather than having to force actual actors to do this.

SPEAKER_05 23:12

Yeah. It's so true. But this ad is, to me, a good example of political ads. They're trying to get our attention. There is that shock value. And that is something people need to be aware of. Like this is doing what it's set out to do.

SPEAKER_06 23:31

We're gonna move up north to Alaska with Mary Paltola. Mary Petola is a Democratic candidate running for a Senate seat in Alaska. She is the first Alaskan native in Congress when she won a special election as a House representative in 2022. And now she's seen as a serious candidate to flip a Senate seat that has long been held by the Republican incumbent Dan S. Sullivan. If Paltola wins, she would be the first Democrat to win the seat in almost 20 years. And this race has gotten a lot of news coverage very recently because the U.S. Department of Justice has filed a suit against the Alaska Division of Elections to block them from certifying the election if Mary Potola wins. They're saying the issue is that there is another candidate in the race named Dan J. Sullivan. And the DOJ is arguing that it could be confusing to voters who are trying to vote for Dan S. Sullivan. So we know that this is a serious campaign and a serious race, and it's really interesting to see the kinds of ads that Paltola is running. So we're going to play one now. In this ad, we see different scenes of Mary Paltola speaking with local families and workers. There's imagery of Alaskan energy projects and industry. And we see different quotes coming up about Paltola's support for the Second Amendment, her support for energy projects, about her voting record and her defiance of her party on issues like border control.

SPEAKER_03 25:02

There's only one thing that matters to me getting the job done for Alaska. And I'll take on anyone, including Democrats, anyone in the lower 48 who doesn't understand what Alaska needs. They don't get that resource development is about our survival. They don't get that firearms are for feeding our families and protecting ourselves. That a secure border keeps all Americans safe. When both parties are attacking you, you're doing something right. Alaska first always. I'm Mary Paul Cola and I approve this message.

SPEAKER_05 25:32

That's a really fascinating ad because if I didn't know what party she was in, I would think that that's a Republican ad.

SPEAKER_06 25:41

Yeah, she's a really downplaying party, for sure. Yes. And she's building an identity clearly that emphasizes her being an Alaskan and she's taking a messaging that's very Alaska first, which kind of aligns with conservative political messaging.

SPEAKER_05 25:56

The mention of gun rights, the mention of immigration. She mentions both parties being mad at you. Yes. It's obvious that she's trying to appeal to Republicans who might not be completely happy with their Republican choices and basically saying, I know I'm a Democrat, but don't worry, I have you.

SPEAKER_06 26:15

Yeah, and trying to push back against any opponents' messaging that may try to position her as some kind of radical leftist or something just because she's listed as a Democrat on the ballot.

SPEAKER_05 26:26

This local feel is interesting. This is a really significant election for federal government, but she is really playing into I am an Alaskan, that's what matters to me. Almost saying, you know, I'm gonna not be distracted by the stuff going on in DC. I'm here for you. It seems like a pretty effective messaging strategy.

SPEAKER_06 26:51

I think so. And I think it speaks to a lot of the unpopularity and the distrust towards government, especially the federal government now. I think it's really smart and strategic of her to be focusing on that.

SPEAKER_05 27:02

I like that it's about her and it's not about her opponents. Yes. It just drives me crazy how often it's about the other person.

SPEAKER_06 27:09

Oh my god, it's almost always about this. Yeah. It's not about why you should vote for me, it's about why you shouldn't vote for my opponent.

SPEAKER_05 27:15

I'm not a huge fan of that, but it is the way that these ads usually work.

SPEAKER_06 27:20

It's such a cynical view of government, though.

SPEAKER_05 27:24

I also think that it's kind of disrespectful to the voter. Yeah. That we aren't smart enough to want to know what people believe or what their policy is. It's like dumbing down the whole thing. And it's like, we can do better than that, people.

SPEAKER_06 27:39

Yeah, and it just makes us feel like all our options are whoever's gonna be less bad. Totally.

SPEAKER_05 27:44

So the next one is from Arkansas. So most of you, we're going to assume, know Sarah Huckabee Sanders. She is the governor of Arkansas, has been governor since 2023. She was also the White House press secretary from 2017 to 2019 in Trump's first term. She's currently running for re-election for governor of Arkansas. The ad we're gonna play opens with a young white male playing video games. We see him in sweats, he's eating cheese balls, he looks like he hasn't showered in a while, and the voice you hear is Sarah Huckabee Sanders. So let's play this one.

SPEAKER_09 28:29

Yeah. Oh, you want some of this? Come on. Me, Brown. Brad has turned relaxing into a full-time profession. But you, you actually work hard. You pay taxes to cover welfare for guys like Brad who just choose not to work. That's why I launched a welfare to work requirement. Almost there. Now, more Arkansans are working than ever before. Even Brad.

SPEAKER_05 28:59

So this ends with Brad and a tie ready to go to work, and like the video game is like game over. So this got a lot of pushback from Republicans. So here we have a known candidate, right? A sitting governor who is really trying to promote her welfare work uh requirements. This is actually a policy message. Yep. But her Republican counterparts were really mad that she chose to portray a young white male this way. So the criticism is not about Sanders' policy at all. Right. It's about the race and gender of this fictional character at the center of the spot.

SPEAKER_06 29:41

Well, never mind that the majority of people receiving these benefits in Arkansas are white.

SPEAKER_05 29:45

But that's not the narrative that Republicans like to echo, right? Right. They're saying she's tone-deaf, that this ad is vilifying the demographic that they need to reach. And it's so interesting because no one is fighting the work requirement. That is a policy they agree with. Yeah. They're looking at the message and the casting and the creative choices of the ad.

SPEAKER_06 30:09

They care more about the packaging of the message than the actual message itself, which just encapsulates the whole problem with the political process right now. Right?

SPEAKER_05 30:18

Yeah. Oh my gosh. And to her credit, she doubled down on X and she wrote, Some critics online don't like my welfare work requirement ad. Next thing you know, they'll say I should have used cookies instead of cheese balls. If you are able-bodied, you should not collect welfare simply because you choose not to work. So she totally doubled down and was like, I'm not gonna pay attention to this. This was my message. I'm good with it. We just showed you the Sarah Hucker B. Sanders one, the one before with Steve Hilton. The people that these are angering are the people in these candidates' party. Right. So, what does that say about what is going on internally in the party itself? That's a really good point. What is that tension that we're feeling here? And it feels like there's this individual nature of these races that they have to protect themselves and their own messaging, and they can't talk about it from a party point of view.

SPEAKER_06 31:20

I mean, that points back to what you were saying about how the majority of Republican campaign messaging was not mentioning the Republican Party.

SPEAKER_05 31:30

The other thing about this ad is that she's trying to be funny. This is a silly ad. Like he is a caricature. I gotta give her a little credit for trying something new. Like she was trying not to be fearful. She wasn't talking about the other candidate. She was trying something else to get her message across. And you also just wonder why he just can't win sometimes.

SPEAKER_06 31:53

I mean, I appreciate that she was trying to point to something tangible that she did. I mean, that's an actual policy conversation that she's trying to have.

SPEAKER_05 32:01

Yeah, which is, you know, not the usual thing that we're seeing in ads.

SPEAKER_06 32:05

No. And on that note, shall we move on to the next one? Please. Bo Bai is a Democratic candidate running for Secretary of State in Indiana. And if his last name sounds familiar to you, he does come from legacy in the political world. He is the son of former Indiana governor Evan Bai and the grandson of former Senator Birch Bai. Now, there's some important context in this race, which is that the current Secretary of State has faced years of scrutiny over allegations of corruption and misuse of public resources. So a big theme and focus point in this race for both Bobai and the Republican candidate Max Engling is to take on corruption and to clean up the office. Both of these candidates are young men. They're both in their 30s. But what's interesting is that this is a pretty aggressive fight between two candidates who are already trying to position themselves as being tough. That's interesting. Yeah, so we're gonna play one of Bobai's ads now. In this ad, he's in a garage gym. There's an American flag on the wall. He's lifting weights, he's bench pressing, pushing weights across the room and bouncing a ball up and down. He's doing pull-ups. I feel like I'm not making this sound very manly, but he's doing strength exercises while we listen to this voiceover.

SPEAKER_02 33:25

Most politicians are weak, bought and paid for by special interests. I'm Bo Bai, a captain in the Marine Corps. Seventh-generation Hoosier. I'm running for Secretary of State because I'm disgusted with the corruption in that office. I'll end it on day one. No more wasteful spending for politicians getting rich while Hoosiers struggle to pay for food and gas. I'll stand up to any man who clean this mess up. I'm a Marine. And we never back down.

SPEAKER_06 33:49

Oh man, that's clear. There's been some commentary in the media about how Democratic candidates are trying to portray more traditional masculinity. We're in a world where the manosphere is feeling really empowered. And so maybe it is a strategic decision for politicians to try to tap into that because maybe that's where voters are right now. But I have to be honest, that makes me sad and also kind of scared. Yes, both of those things.

SPEAKER_05 34:16

The use of the word weak immediately is so strategic. Weak on crime. Like it just feels like wait, it's like 1980s. The message is so simple. Yes. This is just one of those messages where I'm like, do people really buy this?

SPEAKER_06 34:34

Right. I think it's also a sign that Democratic voters are wanting candidates who will fight, who will be tough and push back. I don't know. Maybe it will be effective.

SPEAKER_05 34:46

The final one we're gonna look at is probably the one that's gotten the most attention recently. This has to do with the Ohio governor race. So Vivek Ramaswamy, um, he has never held elected office. Um attention of the American people in 2023 when at 38 years old, he was the youngest candidate in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. He ran as an anti-woke America First Conservative. He suspended his campaign early in 2024. He endorsed Trump right away. And in 2024, he was named with Elon Musk to lead Doge, the Department of Government efficiency, but he never really served in that role. He left soon after Trump's inauguration. And there were some rumors that it had to do with Elon Musk, some rumors that he really wanted to run for office, and you couldn't do that if you were a part of Doge. So he launched his campaign for Ohio governor in 2025. And he is now the Republican nominee. He's running against Democrat Amy Acton, who is Ohio's former health director. He has been getting an incredible amount of criticism and pushback on a recent campaign ad that I'm actually going to let local news anchors explain the ad and play the ad for us.

SPEAKER_01 36:12

Right now, things are getting heated in the Ohio race for governor. It comes as Republican candidate Vivek Ramaswamy launched a $4 million ad campaign featuring a controversial viral video.

SPEAKER_10 36:23

The video features the estranged mother of Ramaswamy's Democratic opponent named Amy Acton, there in Ohio Acton.

SPEAKER_01 36:45

She was taken out of the home as a child with her brother. In the ad, Acton's mother says her daughter can't be trusted, though. Here's a clip from that ad.

SPEAKER_04 37:06

She lies about her past. She says she grew up living in a town. None of that is true. She's lied her entire life. My daughter needs help. And she can't help you if she needs help herself. Don't vote for people who lie. Don't let her become your governor.

SPEAKER_05 37:26

Before we respond to this ad, we're actually gonna play a clip of Amy Acton responding to the ad.

SPEAKER_00 37:34

I won't normalize somebody who has said that my childhood is something I'm just complaining about, who today just released an ad using my birth mother who I was removed from at the age of 12 for severe abuse and neglect and sexual abuse. My brother and I were removed. I just can't normalize somebody who calls me things like a socialist, which I am not, and then follows that statement by saying the Second Amendment was made for times like these to eradicate socialism, to get rid of socialists. That's what I am made for. The words our leaders use matter, and I think it's gonna take courage right now from all of us to stop normalizing the sort of rhetoric.

SPEAKER_05 38:19

So this is absolutely disgusting.

SPEAKER_06 38:24

I don't even know what to say about this. I cannot believe that any campaign strategist would think that this kind of ad approach would endear any candidate to voters. It's just so horrific in so many ways to me.

SPEAKER_05 38:40

Do you think that this falls into a similar category as the Steve Hilton one in the sense of did he know what he was doing? And are more people talking about him than were talking about him before this?

SPEAKER_06 38:56

I think that there probably was a bigger strategy here. It's just my own personal opinion. Yes. But I feel like there is no way that this was an ad made seriously for Ohio voters. I feel like there's something bigger or different that's happening here. Like, I don't know if Ramaswamy's actually serious about this governor race, or maybe he's trying to hedge his bets or something where if he loses, then he can go back into the Trump administration or maybe angle for a role in the 2028 presidential campaign or something. Like it just truly does not make sense to me why he would run this ad. Even if he wanted to get more coverage for himself, surely the type of coverage that he would be getting would not be considered a benefit to this campaign. I feel like there is some other goal here that's maybe about getting him attention, maybe about aligning him with the Trump administration who has come out and supported him with this ad. I don't really know, but I cannot believe that this was made seriously for Ohio voters.

SPEAKER_05 40:01

To me, it makes me think about the question: how personal can a political ad get? We were talking about how there are so many ads that attack the opponent. And this, in a lot of ways, is that structure, right? We are gonna go after our opponent. We are gonna get someone to say she's a liar, to get her estranged mother and to learn about her history is another level that is to me unforgivable. But the structure of the ad is actually quite common, right? We're gonna try to prove that our opponent is not good for the job. Yeah, and to question their integrity. It seems like there is no way that this is anything but good for her, for her candidacy, because it's going to make people empathize with her. It's going to make people aware of her past in a way that maybe they weren't. They're gonna look at her as like a powerful survivor, which is going to help her campaign.

SPEAKER_06 41:10

And I hope it's going to make voters think about the integrity of Ramaswamy as a candidate and as a potential governor for Ohio. It's almost like an attack ad on himself, in a way. Yeah. Yeah. It makes people not want to vote for him once they understand the context of this ad.

SPEAKER_05 41:27

It's really interesting what you said about it being for another reason. Because if you look at the reaction, you know, there has been condemnation on both sides of the aisle. Like both Democrats and Republicans are like, what were you thinking doing this? This is just appalling. Yeah. But if you hear what JD Vance and Trump said about it, they didn't have that reaction. I think Trump actually used the words, I don't care, you know? Yeah. And so there is still that base that maybe Ramaswamy is trying to reach, even if they aren't Ohio voters.

SPEAKER_06 41:58

So maybe it was effective for him, but not in the way that we actually see at this moment.

SPEAKER_05 42:03

Yes. So all of these are interesting races to take a look at and good examples of the way in which candidates are messaging right now for the midterms.

SPEAKER_06 42:15

So if you will indulge me, Michelle, please. I would like to talk about one of the biggest changes in recent times to political advertising, which is social media, of course. For context, I worked on political ads policies at Meta. I've personally reviewed hundreds, if not thousands, of gray area ads to decide whether they should be treated as political or not on Facebook and Instagram. So I am a little bit of an expert on this. I think it's a little bit niche, but it's helpful sometimes. So I'm gonna nerd out a little bit. And if it becomes too much, please let me know, Michelle.

SPEAKER_05 42:49

I will. I love when you nerd out, though. I'm very excited to hear your knowledge.

SPEAKER_06 42:53

So we are gonna focus this conversation on the United States because this episode is about the US midterms, but every country has different rules and regulations about this. And that's exactly where I want to start is the regulation of political advertising in the US. So there are some general rules about disclaimers, about who paid for ads and whether the candidate approved it, right? That's those statements that we hear at the end of the commercials. I'm Gina Woo and I approve this ad. This is done differently based on whether it's a federal election, which is regulated by the Federal Election Commission or state elections, and different states can have different rules. And the rules can also vary based on whether they're TV ads, for example, versus social media. Now, the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, they regulate political ads on broadcast TV and radio, and they generally cover federal, state, and local elections. So that's what I want to focus on here. And the FCC has five general principles for political ads on broadcast. One, political ads have to disclose who paid for them. Two, during certain time periods pre election, qualifying Candidate ads are entitled to the lowest available rates for comparable airtime that they're buying. Three, broadcasters have to maintain records of political advertising purchases and they have to make those records publicly accessible. Four, there's the equal time rule, which means that if a broadcaster gives airtime to one candidate, then they have to provide comparable airtime to their opponents too. And we've seen that issue come up, for example, with the late show with Stephen Colbert and some of the interviews that he was doing. And five, lastly, the FCC bars broadcasters from editing, correcting, or refusing to air candidates' ads, even if the ads include misleading or offensive claims due to censorship concerns. So that goes back to what you were saying earlier, Michelle, about how there's no obligation to actually be truthful in political ads.

SPEAKER_05 44:50

Yeah.

SPEAKER_06 44:51

There was a bill introduced in 2017 called the Honest Ads Act. This was a bipartisan effort by Democratic senators Mark Warner and Amy Klobuchar and Republican Senator John McCain. When McCain died, Lindsey Graham took his place as a co-sponsor of this bill. It's like, remember when Democrats and Republicans could work together? Oh my goodness. And this was right after the 2016 presidential election, where there was a lot of attention on election security and the role of foreign interference in elections. So the idea with the Honest Ads Act was to adapt the FCC rules to social media. It required disclosure for who paid for political ads. It required record keeping of those ads that the public can access. And it required proving that you were based in the United States in order to run ads on social media that could influence American elections. And to that end, the bill also went a step further than the FCC rules for broadcast. Because one of the learnings from 2016 was that it's not just these campaign ads from candidates that can influence elections, but also ads about issues. So messaging about immigration or guns or healthcare or education can influence elections just as much as campaign ads from candidates. So the Honest Ads Act was saying that all of these rules should also apply to those ads, not just political campaigns. So it's not just candidates, but also anyone who's talking about these issues. That can be the NRA, it can be Greenpeace, it can be UNICEF, it could be your local women's center or your local animal shelter, depending on what they're talking about in their ads. So this bill did not get passed. Shocker. But, and this may be a shocker, both Facebook and Twitter had supported it. Wow. And Meta at least put this bill into practice as if it did become law, even though it didn't. And it was actually my job at the company to implement it.

SPEAKER_05 46:54

Wow. Wait, so oh gosh, so much to unpack. So the Honest Ads Act didn't pass. Meta and X were like, oh no, Meta and Twitter. Yes, it was Twitter at the time. This is really interesting. So do you have a sense of why they decided, like, you can only speak to your experience, but why they were like, we're still gonna do this. We're still gonna look at these regulations internally.

SPEAKER_06 47:23

This is my own personal opinion. Yes. I think that Mark Zuckerberg is very tired of having conversations about misinformation and elections. I think that nothing would be better for him than to just be told, this is what you need to do, and we can move on from these issues. So I think that this was strategically their good faith effort to say we are doing something. We're going beyond the law to do something. And they also wanted to set a model for what this regulation could look like in other places. Because obviously, conversations about political ads, transparency, and election security is happening everywhere, not just in the United States. So if there's already a model that the company can put forward, then that can help shape what these regulations look like in other countries. This is almost 10 years now.

SPEAKER_05 48:11

So has anything happened since then? And is there a possibility for regulation on political ads on social media?

SPEAKER_06 48:17

So I have to be honest with you, I'm not holding my breath for this in the United States right now.

SPEAKER_05 48:21

But specifically in the United States.

SPEAKER_06 48:23

Well, we are seeing laws getting passed in other places, but I'd say that generally policymakers have a very tricky relationship with social media because when they're in office and they're policymakers, they are tough on tech. But when they're candidates and politicians, they need to be able to run their ads and engage with voters on social media, right? So putting restrictions on the platforms also means putting restrictions on themselves. So I'm really not optimistic, but there have been versions of the Honest Ads Act and regulations that have been passed in other countries, like Australia and Singapore and Canada, for example. And Europe actually just passed some laws restricting political ads on social media to the point where Meta actually said that they would stop allowing political ads at all. From the candidates or from anyone? From anyone. So those social issues that I was talking about, they're stopping those as well.

SPEAKER_05 49:22

Do I understand this correctly by saying that the regulation is so strict that it's easier for them to just ban it?

SPEAKER_06 49:28

What the company says is that the regulation is so restrictive that they're not confident in their ability to comply. And so it would just be easier for them to just not have it.

SPEAKER_05 49:39

So how do you feel about that in terms of should we even have political ads on social media? I know you're saying that we're not going to regulate it in the US, but is there a scenario where you think we should just do the same thing that is happening in Europe? That it shouldn't be allowed.

SPEAKER_06 49:57

So this is really interesting. Because there is no standard regulation, different platforms treat political ads differently.

SPEAKER_05 50:04

Oh, of course.

SPEAKER_06 50:05

So my understanding is that YouTube and Google, for example, have processes similar to Meta. But we have a real example of a platform that does not allow political and campaign ads, and that's TikTok. Their policy says that they don't allow political ads. But to understand all of this, I think we need to talk about what is an ad. Oh, yeah, that would be good. On social media, there are two ways that you can distribute content. One is to buy ad space. So you make a piece of content and you pay the platform to distribute it to a specific audience of people you're trying to reach. You want to be seen a certain number of times within a specific time frame. And generally, the more that you want to be seen, the more you have to pay.

SPEAKER_05 50:47

I think it's important to note how much money is being spent right now in the US. And it's been reported that this is the most expensive midterm ever. And Ad Impact projects that $11.6 billion is being spent this season compared to $8.9 billion in 2022. So the level of money going into this. That's a huge increase. It's an enormous increase. And then, of course, this money is going to a lot of things, but obviously some of it is these advertising dollars that are being spent either on broadcast or on social media.

SPEAKER_06 51:29

And this is a real problem because on social media there is no equal time rule, like on broadcast. And also the ads on social media run as an auction. So when you're buying ad space, you're bidding against other advertisers who are trying to reach the same audience during the same period. It's kind of like trying to get an Uber during sear pricing.

SPEAKER_05 51:48

Okay, that is such a good analogy. Again, it's like I want to pause and put it in all caps with exclamation points. This idea that there's no equal time rule on social media.

SPEAKER_06 51:58

And there's no obligation on the pricing that you offer to candidates or the amount of ad space that are reserved for candidates. So as you can imagine, if you are two candidates trying to reach the same voters before election day, you're just bidding against each other. And whoever has more money is going to get seen more.

SPEAKER_05 52:15

I mean, that is all really mind-blowing information. When I was looking at some stuff for this podcast episode, my mind was like starting to spin with all of the rules and regulations or lack of you're organizing all of this very simply for me. So thank you for that. Okay. Well, thank you. I'm hearing you talk about the lack of regulation on social media and choices that the different platforms can make. Just the fact that they can make different choices is something that's interested in this landscape, right? TikTok and Meta can have totally different policies. Yeah. But I think about the smaller candidates, right? Or the smaller campaigns. And when I say smaller, I guess the lower budget campaigns, they need social media. Yes. Because they can't afford broadcast television prices, probably. I mean, that might be simplifying it.

SPEAKER_06 53:08

Well, in a way, social media is made for people who aren't in the mainstream, who don't have access to mainstream channels.

SPEAKER_05 53:16

Right. So it's kind of like two things are happening at once. Yeah. Is that we need social media for these campaigns that don't have as much budget. They can get access to voters through social media. But then you're saying that social media companies have this auction and that the more money you put into that, the more likely you are to be seen by more people.

SPEAKER_06 53:39

Well, it depends on how you're distributing the content. So there are two ways that you can distribute content. One is through ads, which is paid, which we just talked about. And the other one is through organic content. So let's say that we get rid of all political ads on social media. There's no way for anybody to pay to reach people anymore. The other option would be that you just post like we do on Instagram or LinkedIn or whatever. And in that case, we rely on the algorithms to deliver the content to people. Does that make sense? So when you're running an ad, you can say, I want to reach this kind of audience. Uh, I want to try to reach them this many times within a certain time frame. Got it. And you're in a little bit more control if you're a content, right? Whereas with organic content, you're just relying on the algorithm. And that's a very different way of reaching people and building an audience.

SPEAKER_05 54:30

You could assume that those that have less money to spend are taking the risk on organic content.

SPEAKER_06 54:37

Yes. And I think that even people who do have money to spend are making organic content. If you look at Zoran Mamdani, for example, or AOC, they have really big followings on TikTok and they've built that through organic content because they can't buy ads on TikTok.

SPEAKER_05 54:53

So this is the thing that I'm wondering about though, is that what makes organic content an ad?

SPEAKER_06 54:59

If I make a post, that's organic. The moment that I pay to boost it, it becomes an ad. Got it. Got it. And when I pay to boost it, then I can time gate it, I can say the kind of people that I want to reach, et cetera. Yes, that's the difference.

SPEAKER_05 55:12

Okay. But then what I don't understand then is that why wouldn't people just do organic content and not spend money? Yeah. It's just reach.

SPEAKER_06 55:24

So there are a couple of challenges for both candidates and for voters. The first is that for candidates, it means that they will have to spend a lot more time building an audience on social media rather than doing other things like engaging with voters in real life, for example. You'd have to post a lot to build an audience. And let's face it, not every candidate is a natural social media star like Mamdania. Yes. But also organic content is not great for messaging that needs to go out to specific audiences within a specific time frame. Yes. You're relying on the algorithm to predict who the audience is that you're trying to reach. And so you can't really control who's going to see your post or when they're going to see it. So for candidates, it means that they might end up building an audience of people who aren't even in their voting districts. Got it. Which is really inefficient for campaigns. But you could also have a case for voters, for example, where it's really confusing because they might be seeing content from candidates that's going viral or something, but they're not even able to vote for them. Or because organic content isn't time-gated, like ad campaigns are, you might not even get important information about your candidates until the election's over, which would be really bad. So there are a lot of challenges to candidates to rely on organic only. They're not going to be in control of who sees their content, who they're trying to reach, or when they're going to see it. So there is a purpose for these ad campaigns. Another issue, though, with organic content, because it does obviously play a very big role. And this is one of the biggest regulatory loopholes, not just in political ads, but in advertising generally on social media, that is not getting discussed enough. There's no regulation of advertising through organic content, which means there's no requirement to prove your identity, for example, to prove the authenticity of your account. We're also seeing campaigns or brands, for example, work with creators on making content that push their messaging and they're able to reach a lot of people because those creators are good at what they do. But they don't have to disclose that they were compensated because they're not paying the platform to distribute the ad. They're paying the creator to make content to share organically. Oh, wow. And there are also companies that provide fake engagement for posts. So I'm not talking about bots. I'm talking about companies that pay real people to comment on and share their clients' posts to boost their visibility and to try to make them go viral. All of this is misleading and are actually paid pieces of content. But because these agreements are happening off-platform, it's very hard for Meta or TikTok or whoever to even know that they're happening. There's basically no transparency about these kinds of paid content, but they are effectively ads.

SPEAKER_05 58:15

Now I want to think like my educator self to be able to say, people, this is what you need to be thinking about when you see political content and to be able to identify what is an ad, what is organic content, to know that even if they're not being transparent, that there is money being spent on political content, we have to be aware of where the money is going and where the money comes from. And that we have to be vigilant about that because the rules are not in place on social media to let us know.

SPEAKER_06 58:52

And also, if you don't want to see political content, you can also adjust your settings to reduce the amount of political content that you're seeing in your Instagram, your Facebook, and your TikTok. I don't know about the other platforms, but on these three for sure.

SPEAKER_05 59:07

Yes. Tell us how.

SPEAKER_06 59:09

Okay, I'm gonna walk you through it, Michelle. Because I'm newly on Instagram. Tap on your profile. Okay, I know how to do that. Okay, now at the top right, do you see these three horizontal lines? Yes. Okay, in TechSpeak, we call this a hamburger menu. Oh, so you tap on the hamburger menu. Oh, okay. So then scroll down. And this is one thing that really bugs me about Instagram is they do not make these things easy. I do not think that these are well-built products, but anyway, that's a whole other topic. Okay. So scroll-do that on the next podcast. Scroll down on the to the section that says what you see. Yes, I see it. Yes. Okay, then the third one is called content preferences. Okay, I'm going there. Then the third one there says political content. Yes. And then you can turn off the toggle that says suggest political content. I'm proud to say it's already turned off. So I must have done this at some point. Great. You can also say what you're interested in, what you're not interested in, and specific words and phrases that you don't want to see.

SPEAKER_05 1:00:09

Okay. This is really good information because this is agency people. I do think this whole conversation about political ads is so important right now because we are in early voting right now for the midterms. But elections have become almost like a 365-day a year thing in the US. Like it's just like constant, right? And there are primaries and there are special elections and all of these things. Just ask election workers that their election officials are working every day, every year. And to be aware of how these political ads impact you, the reactions, the interpretations you have of these ads, but also to really think about a lot of what Gina was saying around the financial and the lack of regulation, the choices platforms are making. It's really important that we know what's going on. Yes.

SPEAKER_06 1:01:06

Also the limitations that platforms have and the inconsistency and how they work. Yeah, I just wish that we had a world that had regulation that actually makes sense for how our media ecosystem works today. I wish that we could figure out the funding inequities. I wish that voters had more access to this kind of information on how these systems work and how it impacts them. So thank you for letting me talk about this.

SPEAKER_05 1:01:41

Okay, let's talk about recommendations. Gina, what do you recommend?

SPEAKER_06 1:01:45

Okay, so we did not talk that much about AI. Oh gosh. But that is, of course, a huge issue as well. Another day, please. Yes. There was a piece in the New York Times about the Wesleyan Media Project from Wesleyan University, which found that $137 million have been spent on political ads this year that were made with AI. And 70% of those ads had no disclosure that they were made with AI. So this is just another example of a space where we need more transparency and more voter education. I personally don't think a disclosure is necessarily enough. Like AI can be a legitimate editing tool. Just because you're using it doesn't mean that you're trying to be deceptive. But this is a very complex topic. If you're interested and want to see some examples of ads using AI, I would recommend checking out this article and the Wesleyan Media project from Wesleyan University. How about you, Michelle?

SPEAKER_05 1:02:38

I want to recommend something that I came across from the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign from the College of Media. They have this great article and video entitled, What Do We Know About Political Advertising? That I think sums up a lot of this stuff really nicely. So I'm gonna link to that in our recommendations. And I want to go back to the beginning on Joseph Gordon Levitt. I do really want to put in his Hit Record platform as a recommendation, especially if you have artists in your life, visual artists, musicians, filmmakers who want to be part of a collaborative creative community. Check out Hit Record. So the next time we talk, it'll be after the midterms. Good luck, everybody. Happy Media Literacy Week. Happy Media Literacy Week!

SPEAKER_06 1:03:26

Michelle Chula Lipkin has been a media literacy educator and advocate for the last 25 years. She teaches at the City University of New York and writes, presents, and consults on topics related to media and tech. You can find her at Michelle Chulalipkin.com.

SPEAKER_05 1:03:41

Gina Wu spent 15 years in tech, building Uber as the first person on the ground in European and U.S. markets, and founding Meta's Global Information Ecosystem Program. Today she is the author of Feed for Thought, a newsletter that explores how digital platforms are reshaping standards for authority, expertise, and trust. Did you see with Gina and Michelle is produced by Stevie Starr. Our theme song is by Lon Jude.