Where are the campaign ads?

Jul 22, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – There’s a strange development taking place. We are already into the thick of the election campaign season. And yet, the campaign is being dominated by persons donning the T-shorts of their parties, the hosting of rallies and meetings and the usual trash talking by politicians.

While the lantern posts are flying the flags of party colors – mostly the PPPC and WIN – the airwaves remain, for the most part, undisturbed by the thrum of persuasive jingles. The newspapers look like they’re still waiting to be wooed. And the digital space, that much-touted coliseum of modern engagement, seems to be reserved more for brawls than ballots.

One wonders, then, what they are waiting for. A cosmic signal? A celestial drumroll? Or are they simply keeping their powder dry, misreading the calendar.

Whatever the reason, the silence is both baffling and a little foolish. For all the talk of social media revolutions and TikTok campaigns, the evidence from seasoned political battlegrounds like the United States is unequivocal: when it comes to actually persuading voters, traditional media still rules the roost.

Consider the figures. During the last U.S. presidential elections, a jaw-dropping $3.5 billion was poured into campaign advertising. And no, it didn’t all go to Facebook and YouTube influencers. A lion’s share went to good old television and newspapers—those enduring bastions of persuasion that speak in full sentences, not emojis.

Why? Because TV, for all its graying temples, is still a heavyweight. A 30-second spot during prime time remains one of the most potent instruments in the political symphony. It’s direct. It’s dramatic. And crucially, it interrupts—the viewer cannot scroll past it with a flick of the thumb. It lands with a thud in the living room, amid dinner and squabbles, and demands attention.

Television doesn’t ask to be heard. It insists.

And newspapers? A political ad in print doesn’t flit by like a dragonfly; it settles, lingers, and returns your gaze. It’s there on the breakfast table, nudging your conscience between spoonfuls of porridge. In a newspaper, there is space to explain—not just emote. You can spell out a policy without abbreviating it to fit a tweet. You can build a case instead of throwing slogans like confetti. For the voter who still bothers to think, the newspaper remains a trusted companion.

It is, then, perplexing that our local campaigners appear to be ignoring these media. One might charitably assume they are planning a grand late-game push. But elections are not won by last-minute scrambles. They are won by shaping public sentiment steadily, by drip-feeding vision and values, by reminding people again and again why the future lies in your hands and not the other fellow’s. That kind of persuasion takes time. And repetition.

And then there’s radio—a medium that wraps itself around a person’s day like a vine. It seeps into the corners of daily life, accompanying us through traffic, toil, and tea breaks. A well-placed radio ad doesn’t just inform—it becomes part of the rhythm of the day. Like a reliable friend with a point of view.

Now, let’s not dismiss social media altogether. It has its place. It sparks conversation, generates buzz, and if nothing else, provides a sandbox for younger voters. But one must be careful not to mistake noise for influence. A meme may go viral and still mean nothing at the polls. A trending hashtag doesn’t always translate to a counted vote. Engagement is not the same as conviction.

More to the point, social media is crowded, fast, and shallow. A political ad, on social media, becomes just another tile in the endless mosaic of distraction. The opposition supporters can scroll past a ruling party post, and vice versa. Traditional media, by contrast, offers something rarer—focus.

And if you care about credibility—and you should—then consider this: people still trust what they see on the evening television news and the morning newspapers more than what they stumble across in the jungle of the internet. An ad on television or in a reputable newspaper carries the mark of seriousness. It suggests you are invested enough to put your message where your mouth—and your money—is.

So why this lull? Why the neglect of proven battlegrounds in favor of murmurings and maybe-laters?

Perhaps our campaigners are underestimating the electorate. Or perhaps they are overestimating the power of digital buzz. Either way, they would do well to learn from history—and from countries that have treated elections not as festivals of gimmickry, but as serious appeals to reason and emotion.

The campaign trail, after all, is not a sprint. It’s a slow march toward the conscience of the nation. And that conscience is often shaped not by the fleeting flash of a screen, but by the enduring presence of a message that lingers—in sound, in print, in memory.

The orchestra may still strike up. The ads may still roll in. But until they do, we are left with the curious sense that the candidates are playing hide-and-seek with the electorate. And one cannot help but ask: if you won’t fight for attention now, what will you fight for later?

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• Campaign ads, Election, Peeping Tom, PPPC, win

---