CBS won't air MoveOn.org winning anti-Bush ad

[Snide]

From MoveOn.org (http://www.moveon.org/news/2278.html)

I don't care what anyone thought about the "Hitler-Bush" controversy from the MoveOn contest. I don't care whether anyone agrees with the sentiment of the winning ad. But if what MoveOn is saying is true, it's B.S. and Americans should be appalled, regardless of their political leanings.

I will, of course, let this play out before rushing to judgment. We don't know CBS's side of the story yet.

[Tmy]

They also wont play an anti meat PETA ad. CBS says its cause they dont want to deal with contraversial stuff. Which I understand. Of course Im sure they'd run those meat council ads with no problem .

[American]

Originally posted by Snide
But if what MoveOn is saying is true, it's B.S. and Americans should be appalled, regardless of their political leanings.



And yet...... I feel a soothing sense of joy and gladness. This must be what it's like to see God.

[Snide]

Originally posted by American



And yet...... I feel a soothing sense of joy and gladness. This must be what it's like to see God. I'm sure you do! :)

[Andonyx]

I think this is kinda sad too considering how much exposure and media influence any of the big five networks have....

BUT!

In principle CBS is still a private organization and to an extent, they can air whatever they damn well please for advertising. I mean I frankly don't care if they say we won't air any ads by Jews.

(I picked Jews cause that's me.)

It's their fricking problem.

I understand there are rules about political campaigning and equal time, but I'm not sure this falls into them.

[Snide]

Originally posted by Andonyx
I think this is kinda sad too considering how much exposure and media influence any of the big five networks have....

BUT!

In principle CBS is still a private organization and to an extent, they can air whatever they damn well please for advertising. I mean I frankly don't care if they say we won't air any ads by Jews.

(I picked Jews cause that's me.)

It's their fricking problem.

I understand there are rules about political campaigning and equal time, but I'm not sure this falls into them. I agree. As much as I may be repulsed by someone, if it's their right, it's their right, even if it's the wrong thing to do.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Snide
From MoveOn.org (http://www.moveon.org/news/2278.html)

I don't care what anyone thought about the "Hitler-Bush" controversy from the MoveOn contest. I don't care whether anyone agrees with the sentiment of the winning ad. But if what MoveOn is saying is true, it's B.S. and Americans should be appalled, regardless of their political leanings.

I will, of course, let this play out before rushing to judgment. We don't know CBS's side of the story yet.

I saw the ad on the link you provided. Being as I am a tad conservative myself, I was pre-disposed to dislike anything Move-on might say. However, upon viewing the ad I can't find any overt reason why CBS should have turned down the 2.25 million dollars of Move-on's money. It simply wasn't offensive on any level. Weird.
-z

[Crossbow]

Some networks have the strangest reasons for saying "No!" to certain advertisements.

There are many which regularly show all sorts of violence and sex, yet refuse to run condom ads since they think that the ads might offend someone. Seesh!

It is a good thing there are other networks that MoveOn.org can run their ad on.

[ceo_esq]

MoveOn says: "It looks an awful lot like CBS is playing politics with the right to free speech."

Do they realize that their right to free speech exists solely in relation to the government, and not in relation to CBS or any private actor? Statements like that one make these people sound either uninformed, guilty of sloppy thinking or downright disingenuous.

[Ignatius]

My understanding is that networks are pretty fickle as to what they will accept and what they will not. Sometimes is because they don't like a particular political ad, sometimes they think an ad is too offensive for a paticular audience, sometimes it seems like little more than a whim. It has always been this way and generally the sponsers of the ad that get refused get to cry "foul" and get some extra attention and support BECAUSE their ad was refused.

In moveon's case, I think the decision was probably made after they got so much (undeserved, IMO) flack about the Bush/Hitler ads. My guess is that CBS was scared off by this more than the content of the actual ad. This is actually a boost for moveon because they have gotten quite a bit of coverage over this refusal to run their ad and can put the money they saved from not having a superbowl ad to something else.

I don't think that CBS would have refused an ad from, say, John Kerry for the superbowl. I don't have a problem with networks being able to refuse ads they don't want to run as long as the advertisers have plenty of alternative places to peddle their wares. I am concerned that the more media consolidation that we see, the more that this kind of thing could be a potential problem.

[Silicon]

I think that part of the point is that broadcasting over the airwaves is a public trust.

CBS makes billions of dollars off of the fact that they have a monopoly on a portion of the RF Spectrum. When you do that, according to the Telecommunications Act of 1934, you have to serve the public interest.
The telecom act of 1934 established these 3 principles:

The airways are public property.
Commerical broadcasters are licensed to use the airways.
The main condition for use will be whether the broadcaster served "the public interest, convenience, and necessity."

So when you have a television network running ads for the Bush Campaign during the Superbowl, but not citizens groups opposing those same views, it does get muddy.

Unless you can clearly show that the ads rejected violate standing standards and practices of the Network (like hard liquor ads, or sexually explicit or whatever).

They can choose not to air them, of course. It's totally within their "rights". According to the way the FCC's supposed to work, their broadcast stations risk losing their license if they decide to shut out all views but their own.

But we also know that given the power of these companies, this will NEVER happen. "Broadcasting in the public interest," can never and will never be enforced, because nobody in Congress has the cajones to say that multi-billion dollar media empire X needs to lose all their broadcast licenses.

Since the 80's, the media giants have sucessfully changed the impression that "broadcasting in the public interest" equals "making a profit". As long as their stations are profitable, they argue, they are giving the audience what they want to see, ergo public interest. Of course, that's not what the phrase really means, otherwise why should there be ANY congressional oversight on broadcast licenses, why not just let the marketplace decide?

The reason why not is the principle of "scarcity". There can only be so many tv stations in Miami. It's why CBS has a station and no matter if you can buy an antenna and power it, YOU cannot. They get that parcel of spectrum, and they get to make billions of dollars off of it, selling time on it to advertisers for free, and YOU don't.

I know that I WISH I could have a free government monopoly to public-owned land which I could then rent back to people to put a billboard up and I could just keep the money! But that's the way it goes I guess!

And Fox is smart enough to put its partisan channel on Cable, where the scarcity principle is moot.

Will the pendulum swing back to where broadcast stations had the responsibility for airing opposing views? (Remember those days? On air rebuttals to on-air editorials? TV News used to take itself seriously.)

Who knows. Not likely. It's far more promising to just placate whoever's currently in the majority in Congress. After all, the when someone else's in the majority, they'll NEED you to back them.

Which tells us who really carries the power. Not the people, not the Congress. The media.

[davefoc]

A lot of people have been making a kind of libertarian argument about the right of CBS to run their own affairs.

I don't think that argument applies here. The networks were given a public resource, RF bandwidth, in return they agree to run their stations to satisfy certain public good goals.

So I think the philosophical notion, it's their business so they can do what they want, doesn't apply here. Even if you lean to the libertarian side, you still might think it was inappropriate for CBS to do some things, even if they could make more money doing those things, with the publicly owned RF bandwidth.

My guess, is that CBS, made a decision based on three things in this case.
1. The people in power are doing what they want them to do so turning down an ad like this might not be all that bad for them.
2. The already mentioned connection that Move-on has with the stupid Bush Hitler ad.
3. The potential for flak because this ad can be interpretted to suggest that Republicans are promoting reversal of child labor laws.

Personally, I think that move-on, might be better off if the ad wasn't aired. I think some people are going to have a strong negative emotional reaction to the use of children like this in the ad and the ad may further damage the credibility of the move-on organization.

Having said that, I thought the ad was very skillfully done and made what is an important point in a creative way.

Edited to add:
The Silicon post wasn't up when I started my post. I wasn't intentionally ignoring what you were saying Silicon, I just didn't see it. -- Dave

[Evolver]

For what it's worth, here is the response from the CBS outlet here:

"Your concern regarding the special interest group Super Bowl spot has been passed on to our CBS Affiliate Relations Division. It has been expressed to us at WBZ4 as a CBS network decision indicating that CBS does not allow specific political issue advertising and restricts its Public Service Announcements to "safe topics" like Mentoring, Aids Awareness, and the Partnership for a Drug Free America."

Let's see what ads they DO allow as the election grows near.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by davefoc
A lot of people have been making a kind of libertarian argument about the right of CBS to run their own affairs.

I don't think that argument applies here. The networks were given a public resource, RF bandwidth, in return they agree to run their stations to satisfy certain public good goals.


Although RF bandwidth isn't infinite (at least in terms of what's available), it should be noted that:

- It would only be an issue if every possible VHF and UHF station were used. If there are any free slots in the UHF/VHF spectrum, then you can no longer say "we gave them the bandwidth", since it would be theoritically possible for another station to exist in that free slot to broadcast the ad

- There are other outlets to broadcast the message (if not the actual ad itself): Other broadcast TV stations, Cable stations, radio stations, the Internet, Newspapers, Magazines, selling videos or books directly

[Cain]

An honest ad on an important topic is strictly forbidden.

But if you want to suggest that drinking a certain type of beer will cause the desert to snow and beautiful women in bikinis to fall from the sky -- well, that's perfectly alright.

[Andonyx]

You heard it here first!

Gentlemen, I am going to change my opinion entirely based on what two other posters have argued.

I believe with only minor quibbles wholeheartedly that the views expressed by Silicon and ElliotFc are more logical than my previously stated views.

I work in broadcasting and I should know better about the brodcast rights and responsibilities that come with FCC approval to have a TV network.

Therefore I am changing my views to the view that CBS is in fact in the wrong and is playing to a partisan audience. This based on what I would deem superior arguments of the posters mentioned above.

Wow.

See, it really does happen.

[Tmy]

Cut CBS some slack. They are a business, a network to boot. There big thing is to offend NOBODY! Or to offend the least possible amounts of people. Otherwise their funding sources (big company advertisers) run to the hills. Whether it be Bush or Clinton they dont want mess with contraversy and piss off people. Why do you think they dummped the Regan movie? WHy do you think they fire newscasters who do somthing inappropriate (pose nude, use racial slurs).

These ads are negative too. Thats a good way to piss off people.

Its one thing to say "Visit Florida" its another thing to say "Dont Visit California, they have all sorts of crime. Visit Florida!"

[Thanz]

For the conspiracy minded among us:

Recall that CBS is also the network that caved into republican pressure and decided not to run the TV movie [not a documentary - thank you Regnad Kcin] on the Reagans, citing concerns that it was not a "balanced" portrayal.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031105-122754-8502r.htm

Now, they don't want to run an ad critical of the Republican president.

Hmmmmm...... CBS=Conservative Broadcast System?

edited to correct "documentary" to "TV Movie"

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Thanz
For the conspiracy minded among us:

Recall that CBS is also the network that caved into republican pressure and decided not to run the documentary on the Reagans, citing concerns that it was not a "balanced" portrayal.
Thanz:

Reading through this thread, I was surprised no one had yet brought up "The Reagans," and then I got to your post.

Whether the two decisions are related or not, who's to say? It does initially appear curious though.

(By the way, may I offer the correction that the Reagan film was not a documentary, but a simple movie "based on a true story?")

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Thanz:

Reading through this thread, I was surprised no one had yet brought up "The Reagans," and then I got to your post.

Whether the two decisions are related or not, who's to say? It does initially appear curious though.
Indeed. Perhaps Oliver Stone can do a movie on it.

1. Who would want this done and 2. Who has the power to cover it up?

I predict that that they backpedal a little bit and perhaps allow a democratic primary ad of some sort. Taking their position back... and to the left.

(By the way, may I offer the correction that the Reagan film was not a documentary, but a simple movie "based on a true story?")
Please do. I have edited my post to reflect this.

[Luke T.]

Should CBS play an ad made by White Nationalists? Suppose they made one of Al Sharpton and edited the sounds of a monkey oo-oo-ooing and ah-ah-ahing over him speaking?

Move-on is just upset because they can't get an ad that is just as vile on the air. They completely made up Bush's dialogue from whole cloth, and then attached him to Hitler. The entire thing is fiction. Is that anyone here's threshold for a political ad? Complete fiction? What public service does it really serve?

None.

So why is CBS somehow obligated to show it?

Dean's little outburst in Iowa naming the states he was going to conquer is closer to a Hitler outburst than anything else.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Should CBS play an ad made by White Nationalists? Suppose they made one of Al Sharpton and edited the sounds of a monkey oo-oo-ooing and ah-ah-ahing over him speaking?

Move-on is just upset because they can't get an ad that is just as vile on the air. They completely made up Bush's dialogue from whole cloth, and then attached him to Hitler. The entire thing is fiction. Is that anyone here's threshold for a political ad? Complete fiction? What public service does it really serve?



You apparently didn't actually watch the ad CBS is not airing did you?

Nice reaction to something you haven't seen.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Luke T.

Move-on is just upset because they can't get an ad that is just as vile on the air. They completely made up Bush's dialogue from whole cloth, and then attached him to Hitler. The entire thing is fiction. Is that anyone here's threshold for a political ad? Complete fiction? What public service does it really serve?

What are you talking about? The ad they want to run has nothing to do with Hitler. The ad shows a bunch of kids working and then says "Guess who is going to have to pay for Bush's 1 trillion dollar deficit?"

Where is the vileness?

[Grammatron]

The argument that CBS should air the ad because they are on the public's airwaves is wrong simply because there's more than one station out there.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Grammatron
The argument that CBS should air the ad because they are on the public's airwaves is wrong simply because there's more than one station out there.

No...because then you're saying the responsibility to use the airwaves for the public good and discourse rests only on those stations that want to use it that way.

If all the major networks say, screw that educational television mandate, I'll let another network handle it...well, that wouldn't work out too well.

We're not talking about stations having a monopoly, we're talking about the bargain they enter into when they receive the FCC license to broadcast over public airways. There's a responsibility to the public implicit in this. And if the FCC can demand that political candidates get equal time from networks in the interests of public information, then it seems odd that CBS can pick and choose which political causes it accepts ads from or doesn't.

ETA: Changed word, "supports" to "accepts ads from"; fixed typos.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Luke T.

Move-on is just upset because they can't get an ad that is just as vile on the air. They completely made up Bush's dialogue from whole cloth, and then attached him to Hitler. The entire thing is fiction. Is that anyone here's threshold for a political ad? Complete fiction? What public service does it really serve?

None.

So why is CBS somehow obligated to show it?

Dean's little outburst in Iowa naming the states he was going to conquer is closer to a Hitler outburst than anything else.

Luke, thank you for kindly demonstrating exactly why it's preferable to know what you're talking about before shooting your mouth off. Because otherwise, you wind up looking pretty stupid.

This ad has nothing to do with Hitler. You haven't even seen this ad.

Here's the history: MoveOn.org ran a contest for amateur anti-Bush TV ads. Winner would get a Super Bowl spot (or, they'd try to get them a Super Bowl spot).

All of the submissions--including the Hitler one--were made available over the MoveOn.org web site. Due to public outcry, or due to a "slip-up" in MoveOn.org's acceptance process, MoveOn.org claimed the ad was in bad taste and pulled it. MoveOn.org did not fund, produce, direct, or otherwise have any creative hand in the creation of the Hitler ad. They just posted it along with the other submissions.

The Hitler ad did not win, it is not the ad in question, here. The winning ad is a fairly tame commentary on Bush's spending habits.

Please at least RTFA (as they say on Slashdot) before losing your temper about it.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Andonyx


No...because then you're saying the responsibility to use the airwaves for the public good and discourse rests only on those stations that want to use it that way.

If all the major networks say, screw that educational television mandate, I'll let another network handle it...well, that wouldn't work out too well.

We're not talking about stations having a monopoly, we're talking about the bargain they enter into when they receive the FCC license to broadcast over public airways. There's a responsibility to the public implicit in this. And if the FCC can demand that political candidtaes get equal time from networks in the interests of public information, then it seems odd that CBS can pick and choose which political causes it supports or doesn't.

And what is public good? From where some on this forum are sitting the ad is definitely against public good, do they count? How many people do you need to agree with an issue to make it "public good?"

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Grammatron


And what is public good? From where some on this forum are sitting the ad is definitely against public good, do they count? How many people do you need to agree with an issue to make it "public good?"

It has nothing to do with the message it has to do with the information channels available.

If you cannot see any public good in having btoh sides of a political race being able to get their message across on the single most effective medium, then you are clearly in need of some hisotyr of journalism, and media classes.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Evolver
Let's see what ads they DO allow as the election grows near. I believe it's the local affiliates that show political ads, not the networks. Maybe MoveOn.org could try to buy local spots during the Superbowl to get the views they're after.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Andonyx


It has nothing to do with the message it has to do with the information channels available.

If you cannot see any public good in having btoh sides of a political race being able to get their message across on the single most effective medium, then you are clearly in need of some hisotyr of journalism, and media classes.

I don't think it's the message but a group -- same goes for PETA -- that's a problem. They don't want that group's ad to be in it because then someone else whose ad comes one before/after might pull their ad costing CBS money. Maybe if it was the same message from some other not so controversial group, CBS wouldn't even blink.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I don't think it's the message but a group -- same goes for PETA -- that's a problem. They don't want that group's ad to be in it because then someone else whose ad comes one before/after might pull their ad costing CBS money. Maybe if it was the same message from some other not so controversial group, CBS wouldn't even blink.

Yes but we have no way of holding them acountable to that. If you're saying that CBS can with no specified restrictions deny any group it wants to the right to advertise, then they could just as easily say I'm sory we are not accepting ads from the DNC this year because it might offend our viewers in Missouri.

[Grammatron]

Ooops double post, delete please

[Andonyx]

Uh...where you going with that one Gramm?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Yes but we have no way of holding them acountable to that. If you're saying that CBS can with no specified restrictions deny any group it wants to the right to advertise, then they could just as easily say I'm sory we are not accepting ads from the DNC this year because it might offend our viewers in Missouri.

That's so highly unlikely to happen that I'll say, "it won't happen." Yes MoveOn is advocating a message on the deficit -- kind of ironic since they seem to be for government spending to the socialist extreme. I'm sure PETA has some important environmental message too, and I'm sure KKK has some good political message as the Neo-Nazis and Hamas. They all can make a good political argument, doesn't mean CBS should give any of them airtime.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Andonyx


You apparently didn't actually watch the ad CBS is not airing did you?

Nice reaction to something you haven't seen.

I have seen the ad with the kids. I got the two confused. Sorry. Color me red.

Originally posted by Cleon
Please at least RTFA (as they say on Slashdot) before losing your temper about it.

I did RTFA. I just did not play the ad because I am at work. When Dr. Jihado was posting his smut on the forum, I had to turn off the options for video and photos so my boss or coworkers would not see them. I have not turned them back on since.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Grammatron


That's so highly unlikely to happen that I'll say, "it won't happen." < SNIP!!!> They all can make a good political argument, doesn't mean CBS should give any of them airtime.

So it won't happen, but you're saying it's okay if it did?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Andonyx


So it won't happen, but you're saying it's okay if it did?

I'm not saying that.

[Luke T.]

I'll tell you why I thought they were talking about the Hitler ad. From the OP link:

That's why we need to let CBS know that this practice of arbitrarily turning down ads that may be "controversial" -- especially if they're controversial simply because they take on the President -- just isn't right.

CBS will claim that the ad is too controversial to air.

Aside from Moveon's assumption what CBS will claim, the ad with the kids does not strike me as "controversial." So I assumed they were talking about the Hitler ad. I did not know the kid ad was the one that won. With people like Michael Moore on board with Moveon, I would not have been surprised if the Hitler ad had won.

Now that I am on the same page as everyone else :D, I myself would be interested to hear CBS' explanation for not running the kid ad. Perhaps they will not claim the ad is too controversial. Perhaps they will claim Move-on is too controversial. I would bet even money that is what they will say.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Perhaps they will not claim the ad is too controversial. Perhaps they will claim Move-on is too controversial. I would bet even money that is what they will say.

That's where my betting money is going as well.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I'm not saying that.

Okay so there should be no hard and fast rules, but you do want some semblence of balance presented on the air?

So by what mechanism are you suggesting we should try to preserve this balance?

Or are you just relying on the kind folks at Westinghouse to be politically nuetral?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Perhaps they will not claim the ad is too controversial. Perhaps they will claim Move-on is too controversial. I would bet even money that is what they will say.

Does that explanation hold water with you?

I'm curious because i bet if you polled 10,000 Americans at Random wether they thought George W. Bush, or Move-on.org was more controversial....I'd bet you find about 9,000 votes of "Moveon is what now?"

And I'm willing to bet CBS will be airing his re-election ads.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Okay so there should be no hard and fast rules, but you do want some semblence of balance presented on the air?

So by what mechanism are you suggesting we should try to preserve this balance?

Or are you just relying on the kind folks at Westinghouse to be politically nuetral?

I would judge it on case by case bases. I provided some examples of groups who I would think to be not acceptable from a Network point of view to be their ad client. Once again, the message is not the problem, the group is.

[Tmy]

I bet theyd play it if it was put out by the democrat from runner. It would simply be a negative add. MoveOn is the problem.

Do you think CBS would ever play a Klan commerical? Of cousre not! Even if it was a klan "dont do drugs" ad.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Does that explanation hold water with you?

I'm curious because i bet if you polled 10,000 Americans at Random wether they thought George W. Bush, or Move-on.org was more controversial....I'd bet you find about 9,000 votes of "Moveon is what now?"

And I'm willing to bet CBS will be airing his re-election ads.

And the same number might not know what PETA is either, doesn't make the organization any less controversial.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Does that explanation hold water with you?

I'm curious because i bet if you polled 10,000 Americans at Random wether they thought George W. Bush, or Move-on.org was more controversial....I'd bet you find about 9,000 votes of "Moveon is what now?"

Yes, it holds water with me. You'd probably get the same type of polling response if you asked people about Stormfront. Move-on is attempting to play psychic and second guess what CBS is going to say because they can't face that the problem isn't with the ad, it is with them.

And I'm willing to bet CBS will be airing his re-election ads.

Is Move-on the only organization running ads against Bush? Are they being banned by CBS? I don't think so.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Yes, it holds water with me. You'd probably get the same type of polling response if you asked people about Stormfront. Move-on is attempting to play psychic and second guess what CBS is going to say because they can't face that the problem isn't with the ad, it is with them.



Is Move-on the only organization running ads against Bush? Are they being banned by CBS? I don't think so.

Actually, right now, who else IS running ads against Bush?

[Number Six]

I think CBS did moveon.org a huge favor by refusing to run the ad. Aside from giving moveon.org free publicity and making them look like they're being suppressed (and maybe they are, I don't know), they saved moveon.org from spending $2 M on a terrible ad. Honestly, I can't imagine the thought process that went into choosing that one. It is so dark (physically, not symbolically) that I literally can't tell what's on the screen half the time.

IMO seems they came up with five ads and three of them were awful, one was decent and one was excellent. Why they managed to pick the awful one I don't know. The one I thought was excellent was the funny one, where it started with a car pulling out of a driveway and a mother and kid running out of the house with the mother yelling "George, you left my child behind." It had four parts and the first three all were very funny and effective IMO. The fourth was merely average but the general point of that part (that rich folks get seperate treatment) could be re-done in a lot of effective and funny ways and if so I think they'd have one of the best political commercials I've ever seen.

I think moveon.org should consider that a big obstacle to their political goals is their lousy decisions. $2 M is a lot of money for an organization to raise and spend and to think they'd blow it on such a bad ad mystifies me.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I would judge it on case by case bases. I provided some examples of groups who I would think to be not acceptable from a Network point of view to be their ad client. Once again, the message is not the problem, the group is.

But that case by case basis is determined by whom?

If it's the individual networks every major network is owned by a large corporation that contributes far more to one party than the other. As it turns out, for all of them it the republican party.

So wether it's going on or not the appearance of impropriety is not entirely illogical.

So if it's the group that's sending the message and not the message, what about If the Gay and Lesbian alliance wanted to put an ad out advocating gay marriage, or opposing the possible ban by ammendment....

Now THAT's controversial.

You're saying, oh well, they'll never get their message on broadcast....?

Or are you saying for some strange reason you trust the big networks to put that massage on the air?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Actually, right now, who else IS running ads against Bush?

Last night on Fox, there was a debate by the Democratic candidates where they bashed Bush for two hours.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Number Six
I think CBS did moveon.org a huge favor by refusing to run the ad. Aside from giving moveon.org free publicity and making them look like they're being suppressed (and maybe they are, I don't know), they saved moveon.org from spending $2 M on a terrible ad. Honestly, I can't imagine the thought process that went into choosing that one. It is so dark (physically, not symbolically) that I literally can't tell what's on the screen half the time.



The AD doesn't look like that. I spend a lot of time at work converting video to and from NTSC to RGB PC color spaces, and it's pretty obvious to me that someone took the ad straight from video and didn't convert color spaces and IRE levels.

I'm sure the ad looks perfectly fine on Video because I can take it right now and crank up the brightness and contrast on the computer without signifcant break-up in the dark areas.

If it were shot or finished too dark to begin with that wouldn't happen.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Last night on Fox, there was a debate by the Democratic candidates where they bashed Bush for two hours.

That's not an Ad, it does however fall under equal time rules for the party.

When the republican presidential candidate / candidates get time on air not directly related to their performance of the duty of President, they have to have that balanced by the same amount of Democratic or other party coverage.

That IS a rule.

So I'm wondering why it osuld be so hard to do the same for advertising.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Andonyx



So if it's the group that's sending the message and not the message, what about If the Gay and Lesbian alliance wanted to put an ad out advocating gay marriage, or opposing the possible ban by ammendment....

Or are you saying for some strange reason you trust the big networks to put that massage on the air?

I wouldn't mind seeing a lesbian massage on the air. :D

But on a more serious note:

But that case by case basis is determined by whom?

If it's the individual networks every major network is owned by a large corporation that contributes far more to one party than the other. As it turns out, for all of them it the republican party.

So wether it's going on or not the appearance of impropriety is not entirely illogical.

This goes back to a question I ask on here occasionally which has never been answered to my satisfaction. Why is it that people don't have a problem when the extreme right (like Stormfront) is kept out of the public arena, but do when the extreme left is?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I wouldn't mind seeing a lesbian massage on the air. :D

But on a more serious note:



This goes back to a question I ask on here occasionally which has never been answered to my satisfaction. Why is it that people don't have a problem when the extreme right (like Stormfront) is kept out of the public arena, but do when the extreme left is?

Actually....I do too. I loathe it, but yes Stormfront should be allowed to put ads on TV if they want to and paid for it.

And if you want my credentials on this, I actually wrote a letter to the Suburban cable access people some years ago when they were deciding if some white supremacists should be allowed a show.

I thought they should.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Andonyx


But that case by case basis is determined by whom?

If it's the individual networks every major network is owned by a large corporation that contributes far more to one party than the other. As it turns out, for all of them it the republican party.

So wether it's going on or not the appearance of impropriety is not entirely illogical.

So if it's the group that's sending the message and not the message, what about If the Gay and Lesbian alliance wanted to put an ad out advocating gay marriage, or opposing the possible ban by ammendment....

Now THAT's controversial.

You're saying, oh well, they'll never get their message on broadcast....?

Or are you saying for some strange reason you trust the big networks to put that massage on the air?

Every time a Network considers an ad it has to weigh it in with who will be offended and how much money we might lose. If either one has a great number attached to it, you bet they won't be doing it. You can scream conspiracy all you want, but this was a business decision. If in the coming days they will get an overwhelming negative response that threatens to take their viewers away, then the ad will return and it will once again be a business decision.

Are you saying that the only way anybody can get their viewpoint out to affect the government is by putting an ad out during Super Bowl?

[Andonyx]

But you didn't answer the question...

How many of the major networks would put an ad on the air form the Gay and Lesbian alliance about the gay marriage ban?

Err, directed towards Luke's last post, that is.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Grammatron




Are you saying that the only way anybody can get their viewpoint out to affect the government is by putting an ad out during Super Bowl?

No, But everyone should have the same chance at using public airwaves....

Look it's already a private concern, because no matter how vital my message is, I will never have 2.5 mil to spend on an ad.

And I'm not asking any networks to stop taking money for an ad...

But what you keep avoiding, but what you're ultimately saying right now is...look if enough people just don't like you're message, you're gonna have to face it. it won't get on broadcast TV.

And it goes back to the gay thing. Gay Marriage and the Gay alliance are controversial. If All the networks make the saem decision that they're sooo controversial the money risk is too great, then I guess Americas largest, most far reaching mass medium will never be used to present the Gay and Lesbian viewpoint on the issue.

I think that's a bit sad.

And by the way....of course what you're forgetting is that if there were FCC rules about political ads, the Network would be off the hook.

No use in getting mad and boycotting a TV network that had to present equal ad time. Your boycott won't change anything.

So that kind of removes the financial risk form the network in the first place, doesn't it.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I believe it's the local affiliates that show political ads, not the networks. Maybe MoveOn.org could try to buy local spots during the Superbowl to get the views they're after.


But then they wouldn't get all this free publicity and conspiracy outrage.

I think that their "CBS won't play our ad" stealth ad campaign is positively inspired.


MattJ

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Andonyx


No, But everyone should have the same chance at using public airwaves....

Look it's already a private concern, because no matter how vital my message is, I will never have 2.5 mil to spend on an ad.

And I'm not asking any networks to stop taking money for an ad...

But what you keep avoiding, but what you're ultimately saying right now is...look if enough people just don't like you're message, you're gonna have to face it. it won't get on broadcast TV.

And it goes back to the gay thing. Gay Marriage and the Gay alliance are controversial. If All the networks make the saem decision that they're sooo controversial the money risk is too great, then I guess Americas largest, most far reaching mass medium will never be used to present the Gay and Lesbian viewpoint on the issue.

I think that's a bit sad.

And by the way....of course what you're forgetting is that if there were FCC rules about political ads, the Network would be off the hook.

No use in getting mad and boycotting a TV network that had to present equal ad time. Your boycott won't change anything.

So that kind of removes the financial risk form the network in the first place, doesn't it.

The keyword here is public airwaveS not airwave, there are plenty of other channels -- including public access which ANYONE can get on -- that can deliver message to the public. I think it's a bit unfair to wait till a networks gets enough money to afford to put on a Super Bowl and then force to air something it doesn't want to when there are plenty of channels that will gladly air that ad for that much money.

[Andonyx]

Did anyone see the ads a group called, "Club for Growth," ran In Iowa before the primaries?


In the ad, a farmer says he thinks that "Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading ..." before the farmer's wife then finishes the sentence: "... Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs."

I find this ad far more offensive than the Moveon ad, and apparently nobody bristled at this ad.

Granted as Michael said it was a local ad not a national ad, so there's a difference.

But seriously, somebody let me know the next time they see an anti-Bush or anti-republican ad...

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Grammatron


The keyword here is public airwaveS not airwave, there are plenty of other channels -- including public access which ANYONE can get on -- that can deliver message to the public. I think it's a bit unfair to wait till a networks gets enough money to afford to put on a Super Bowl and then force to air something it doesn't want to when there are plenty of channels that will gladly air that ad for that much money.

But not for the same exposure.

First public accerss is NOT broadcast, and there is a huge difference both in FCC rules and the number of people it reaches.

Second Yes, NBC might take 2.5 mil to run the ad at midnight on sunday.

But for some reason other peopl have a shot at the super-bowl. Move-on does not, and the only excuse given is that Move-on is too controversial. Sounds crappy to me.

You know what excuse I would have bought?

"Sorry, Move-on showed up about three days too late. We had all our super-bowl slots filled in September. We'll happily take their money and air it during the news show that follows."

[Andonyx]

If I had to make an analogy I lok at it this way.

No real estate agent can say:

"Well, I'm sorry we don't sell houses to "controversial" people because it might upset the neighbors and enough that they would move out and lower our property value.

It's still a private transaction between private parties but there are rules in place to insure that anyone has equal opportunity to get involved in that transaction.

No one is saying they sell the house for less than it's worth, no one is saying they have to MALE a house available for everyone who wants one.

They just can't purposely exclude people from buying ahouse because of their background, or viewpoint, or what have you.

So here the prduct is exposure.

And the price is so many dollars per-hundred thousand people reached.

They shouldn't be able to say, okay you guys are mainstream so we charge a dollar per household. But you guys are controversial so we charge 10 dollars per household.

If Moveon had to go to another network and pay 2.5 mil for a non-superbowl spot that's exactly what would be happening.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Andonyx


But not for the same exposure.

First public accerss is NOT broadcast, and there is a huge difference both in FCC rules and the number of people it reaches.

Second Yes, NBC might take 2.5 mil to run the ad at midnight on sunday.

But for some reason other peopl have a shot at the super-bowl. Move-on does not, and the only excuse given is that Move-on is too controversial. Sounds crappy to me.

You know what excuse I would have bought?

"Sorry, Move-on showed up about three days too late. We had all our super-bowl slots filled in September. We'll happily take their money and air it during the news show that follows."

I'm sorry I just don't see it that way. I guess we're just going to have agree to disagree on this point. Also, I'd rather CBS honestly tell MoveOn they don't want their money rather than make up a lie.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Andonyx
But you didn't answer the question...

How many of the major networks would put an ad on the air form the Gay and Lesbian alliance about the gay marriage ban?

Err, directed towards Luke's last post, that is.

I think most, if not all, of them would.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Andonyx
If I had to make an analogy I lok at it this way.

No real estate agent can say:

"Well, I'm sorry we don't sell houses to "controversial" people because it might upset the neighbors and enough that they would move out and lower our property value.

It's still a private transaction between private parties but there are rules in place to insure that anyone has equal opportunity to get involved in that transaction.

No one is saying they sell the house for less than it's worth, no one is saying they have to MALE a house available for everyone who wants one.

They just can't purposely exclude people from buying ahouse because of their background, or viewpoint, or what have you.

So here the prduct is exposure.

And the price is so many dollars per-hundred thousand people reached.

They shouldn't be able to say, okay you guys are mainstream so we charge a dollar per household. But you guys are controversial so we charge 10 dollars per household.

If Moveon had to go to another network and pay 2.5 mil for a non-superbowl spot that's exactly what would be happening.

I actually have a problem with the government telling people who the can or cannot sell a house to. That is a whole other topic for another day.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Actually....I do too. I loathe it, but yes Stormfront should be allowed to put ads on TV if they want to and paid for it.

And if you want my credentials on this, I actually wrote a letter to the Suburban cable access people some years ago when they were deciding if some white supremacists should be allowed a show.

I thought they should.

I think Stormfront should also be allowed to put ads on the air. I just don't think a network should be made to put their ads on the air. They should be able to say "no" and let them shop somewhere else.

And where I live, there are some little nazis who broadcast their crap on the local cable access. Really stupid stuff.

[corplinx]

As I have stated in other threads, I think the moveon "controversy" was vapor at best. A mountain made out of a anthill. The controversy was that people refused to believe moveon's explanation.

However, I think CBS should keep the political ads out of my SuperBowl. Good job CBS.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Andonyx

But not for the same exposure.


Probably not, but realistically, they'd probably get ad time cheaper on other channels or at other times so they could afford to air it more times, and thus probably reach the same number of people.

Originally posted by Andonyx

But for some reason other peopl have a shot at the super-bowl. Move-on does not, and the only excuse given is that Move-on is too controversial. Sounds crappy to me.


Someone posted a response from CBS, where CBS said it was because it was a 'single issue' ad, and they didn't want to put single issue ads on during the super bowl. If that's true, it would have nothing to do with MoveOn being 'too controverisal'.

Originally posted by Andonyx

You know what excuse I would have bought?

"Sorry, Move-on showed up about three days too late. We had all our super-bowl slots filled in September. We'll happily take their money and air it during the news show that follows."

Of course, that would not have worked if CBS actually hadn't sold all its ad time.

I had to view the ad without sound here at work, so I don't know if I missed anything, but I did wonder; the point of the ad was to show how kids will be burdened with Bush's deficit. What they didn't say is how they'd get rid of that deficit (tax increases or spending cuts). Without that, the ad seems a little directionless.

[Silicon]

According to MoveOn.org, CBS will be running a one-issue ad from the White House's office on Drug Policy during the Super Bowl.



I would guess that the explicit message of it will be "Don't do Drugs."

The implicit message according to MoveOn is probably something like "George W. Bush is a good president, and is fighting an effective war on drugs as part of the larger war on terror."

That may be a stretch as far as I'm concerned. MoveOn's whole "gripe" about this matter hinges on EXACTLY how political the White House's ad is, and who's paying for it (something tells me it's us Sucke--er Taxpayers).

If it's paid for by taxpayers, then MoveOn has a point with their ad about the foolish ways we're incurring a deficit, and if it's payed for by "Citizens to Re-Elect the President" then it is a one-issue political ad, and they should be allowed to run theirs as well.


If the ad that the Bush people are running is just a "don't do drugs" public service spot for free, then MoveOn hasn't a leg to stand on, and this'll come back and bite them as being disingenous.

As far as the group being controversial, HELL our former Vice President Al Gore speaks at gatherings of MoveOn members. If this is a fringe organization, then so's the VFW.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Crossbow
It is a good thing there are other networks that MoveOn.org can run their ad on.

It's too bad none of those other networks are running the Super Bowl, the most highly coveted advertising space of the year, a show that many people watch specificly for it's advertising, knowing that advertisers will bring on their most creative and entertaining ads.

[Zep]

Geez, that advert is just SO tame! Honestly!! And it looks like CBS have simply blocked move.on from the Superbowl because...well...they can, and they know an order when they hear one. That's too bad. However that is just ONE venue that offers only a fairly short opportunity to air anyway.

A more telling point would be if CBS decide not to air it entirely at any time. Easy enough to test, of course. Book it in for more airings at many othe times, and see what happens.

Should CNS decide to ban it entirely, I would suggest (a) going to the alternate media and playing up the "harmless ad banned by CBS, political stooges" angle (should play good with competitors), and (b) trying the same with as many foreign media outlets as possible.

In other words, do an end-run around CBS and what may be the administration that is holding its leash.

[Ed]

CBS is owned by Viacom who also owns:

Radio Networks

Infinity Broadcasting (manages Westwood One Radio Network)
Metro Networks
Radio Stations

Infinity Broadcasting (owns and operates over 180 stations)
Internet

MTVi Group
CBS Internet Group
Nickelodeon Online
BET.com
Contentville.com (35%)
Film Production and Distribution

Paramount Pictures
MTV Films
Nickelodeon Movies
Theater Operations

United Cinemas International (joint venture with Vivendi)
Paramount Theaters
Famous Players Canada
Video

Blockbuster Video
Publishing

The Free Press
MTV Books
Nickelodeon Books
Simon & Schuster
Pocket Books
Scribner
Touchstone
Television Networks

CBS
UPN
MTV Network
MTV
Nickelodeon
Nick at Nite
TV Land
CMT
TNN
VH1
Noggin (joint venture with Children's Television Workshop)
Showtime Networks
Showtime
The Movie Channel
Sundance Channel (joint venture with Robert Redford and Universal Studios)
FLIX
SET Pay-Per-View (sporting and entertainment events)
BET
Comedy Central (joint venture with AOL Time Warner)
Television Production and Distribution

Paramount
Spelling Entertainment Group (80%)
Big Ticket Television
Viacom Productions
King World Productions
Television Stations

16 CBS-affiliated stations
19 UPN-affiliated stations
Sumner Redstone is Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, and Mel Karmazin is the president and Chief Operating Officer.


As such, CBS is simply a brand. That being so it would be stupid to embroil CBS in anything that diminished it's value. A pure business decision.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Luke T.

Why is it that people don't have a problem when the extreme right (like Stormfront) is kept out of the public arena, but do when the extreme left is?

My my, how Limbaughian of you.

How you would scream if anyone called any of the right wing support groups as extreme as Stormfront.