ALERT: Demand That CBS Not Air Outdoor Anti-Vaccine Ad!

[MattusMaximus]

It’s April 8th now, and the ad runs on the 28th. We have 20 days, folks… a LOT can happen in 20 days.

Get moving.

http://skepticalteacher.wordpress.co...ti-vaccine-ad/

Quote:

Okay folks, it’s time to roll up our sleeves and get skeptically active. I have found out that CBS plans to air an anti-vaccination ad on the Jumbotron at 42nd Street in New York’s Times Square starting on April 28th. The sponsoring organizations are the notoriously anti-vaccinationist Mercola and National Vaccine Information Center. These are a couple of the biggest groups out there promoting the falsehood that, among other things, vaccines cause autism (they don’t, btw). And while their ad gives the impression that they want to simply inform people about their “vaccine choices”, what they are really about is spreading flagrantly non-scientific, incorrect, and fear-mongering bilge about vaccines. If you’d like to see some accurate info on vaccines, check out this link to the Hug Me, I’m Vaccinated website.

Folks, we have to do something to stop this. Why? Simple: because vaccines save lives. Period. ...

[trvlr2]

Signed the petition.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Isn't this old news and didn't the ad get pulled already? Is this new or is it a rerun of a past issue?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Respectful Insolence weighs in on a closely related item:

The resident anti-vaccine reporter at CBS News strikes again

Quote:

On the other hand, April is Autism Awareness Month, and I can always count on the anti-vaccine movement to lay down some vaccine pseudoscience on or around April 1 every year (I leave it to the reader to judge the appropriateness of that date); so perhaps this latest from Attkisson is the opening salvo for this year's campaign. Her article opens:

[Skeptic Ginger]

And our own, Science Based Medicine: Anti-vaccine propaganda from Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News bit it seems to just be the Respectful Insolence article revisited.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I signed the petition.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Isn't this old news and didn't the ad get pulled already? Is this new or is it a rerun of a past issue?

No, this is a new thing. I think you're referring to an ad that was run in some movie theaters a few months back.

Btw, I have it on good authority that this issue is currently being advertised right now at the live SGU recording at NECSS

Pass the word.

[AdMan]

Signed.

[leonAzul]

Signed.

[Foolmewunz]

Signed, but I want more.

Signing a petition may or may not achieve anything. Getting a bunch of noisy demonstrators to Times Square to shout, boo, hiss, and blow air horns every time it airs would be far better IMHO.

Not only do you get a chance to tell passersby (by engaging and by pamphleting) that the ad is a crock of fecal matter, but you'd likely get some air time to have a solid spokesperson refute the nonsense.

What's Randi doing that week? This is a cause worthy of the JREF.

[Emet]

Signed.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Signed, but I want more.

Signing a petition may or may not achieve anything. Getting a bunch of noisy demonstrators to Times Square to shout, boo, hiss, and blow air horns every time it airs would be far better IMHO.

Not only do you get a chance to tell passersby (by engaging and by pamphleting) that the ad is a crock of fecal matter, but you'd likely get some air time to have a solid spokesperson refute the nonsense.

What's Randi doing that week? This is a cause worthy of the JREF.

If this were happening anywhere near where I live, or if I lived near NY, I'd certainly show up.

But Lau Joe is right: There should be a demonstration. Petitions are commonplace enough to get ignored nowadays.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

If this were happening anywhere near where I live, or if I lived near NY, I'd certainly show up.

But Lau Joe is right: There should be a demonstration. Petitions are commonplace enough to get ignored nowadays.

Common does not get a petition ignored. The number of signers matters to commercial and political targets.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

It’s April 8th now, and the ad runs on the 28th. We have 20 days, folks… a LOT can happen in 20 days.

Get moving.

Quote:

http://skepticalteacher.wordpress.co...ti-vaccine-ad/

And while their ad gives the impression that they want to simply inform people about their “vaccine choices”, what they are really about is spreading flagrantly non-scientific, incorrect, and fear-mongering bilge about vaccines.

While I basically agree with the above, I cannot agree with the tactic you have chosen to oppose them with. I didn't sign the petition because I place free speech rights above the health and safety concerns of some people not vaccinating for some diseases. Those organizations have a right to advertise and, with truth-in-advertising laws, they cannot legally spread lies and misinformation in the ad; they can only use innuendo.

My opinion is that this is an attempt at censorship of ideas you disapprove of. Even if you are successful, that is going to be the impression that many members of the public will have regarding your campaign. I don't think that's particularly helpful if you want other people to trust what you believe about vaccinations and which sources you believe give correct and incorrect information about vaccinations.

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Signing a petition may or may not achieve anything. Getting a bunch of noisy demonstrators to Times Square to shout, boo, hiss, and blow air horns every time it airs would be far better IMHO.

Not only do you get a chance to tell passersby (by engaging and by pamphleting) that the ad is a crock of fecal matter, but you'd likely get some air time to have a solid spokesperson refute the nonsense.

I think this is a far superior approach. Given speech that some people in society disagree with (I don't care whether it's anti-vaccination movement or the anti-war movement) I prefer that people counter the problem with more speech rather than attempt to censor or repress others from expressing the ideas they disapprove of.

[!Kaggen]

Originally Posted by Beth

While I basically agree with the above, I cannot agree with the tactic you have chosen to oppose them with. I didn't sign the petition because I place free speech rights above the health and safety concerns of some people not vaccinating for some diseases. Those organizations have a right to advertise and, with truth-in-advertising laws, they cannot legally spread lies and misinformation in the ad; they can only use innuendo.

My opinion is that this is an attempt at censorship of ideas you disapprove of. Even if you are successful, that is going to be the impression that many members of the public will have regarding your campaign. I don't think that's particularly helpful if you want other people to trust what you believe about vaccinations and which sources you believe give correct and incorrect information about vaccinations.



I think this is a far superior approach. Given speech that some people in society disagree with (I don't care whether it's anti-vaccination movement or the anti-war movement) I prefer that people counter the problem with more speech rather than attempt to censor or repress others from expressing the ideas they disapprove of.

Hear! Hear!

[Tiktaalik]

Originally Posted by Beth

While I basically agree with the above, I cannot agree with the tactic you have chosen to oppose them with. I didn't sign the petition because I place free speech rights above the health and safety concerns of some people not vaccinating for some diseases. Those organizations have a right to advertise and, with truth-in-advertising laws, they cannot legally spread lies and misinformation in the ad; they can only use innuendo.

My opinion is that this is an attempt at censorship of ideas you disapprove of. Even if you are successful, that is going to be the impression that many members of the public will have regarding your campaign. I don't think that's particularly helpful if you want other people to trust what you believe about vaccinations and which sources you believe give correct and incorrect information about vaccinations...

Innuendo can spread lies and misinformation.

This is not censorship; it's the free speech of the people who are signing the petition. Those who disagree have the same right as those who agree to their free speech, whatever form it comes in.

A company choosing not to support a particular advertiser is not censorship, either. The advertiser can buy their own time or use another venue.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by Tiktaalik

Innuendo can spread lies and misinformation.

Certainly. But they can't do it in an advertisement or they risk running afoul of the law.

Quote:

This is not censorship; it's the free speech of the people who are signing the petition. Those who disagree have the same right as those who agree to their free speech, whatever form it comes in.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't censorship. Some censorship is appropriate. There are, after all, limits on free speech. For example, advertisements cannot contain false information. That could be considered a form of censorship. I would expect that when those laws were passed, there were objections raised on that basis.

I wouldn't prohibit the attempt being made to suppress such speech, as that would also be a form of censorship. I was explaining why I won't sign the petition. I see it as an attempt at censorship and I won't participate in that.

Quote:

A company choosing not to support a particular advertiser is not censorship, either. The advertiser can buy their own time or use another venue.

Here I think we run into a very murky area about what does and does not constitute censorship. I would consider is a form of censorship, but I can appreciate that not everyone would agree with that.

I also consider Walmart to be exercising a form of censorship when they choose not to sell certain books, magazines and music because they object to their content. I recognize they have the right to do so and I am not particularly surprised that I don't share the values of the Walmart corporation.

When I read the OP, I was reminded of some of the many such campaigns run by conservative religious organizations to get material removed from various TV shows some years ago. I didn't appreciate their tactics then. Back when cable TV was still in the future, it sure felt like censorship. Even though I generally agree with the OP, I'm not going to change my mind about the use of that tactic.

[ehcks]

There is no censorship in a company being forced to stop selling a product or idea when enough people make it clear that they won't buy it.

[MikeSun5]

Originally Posted by Beth

While I basically agree with the above, I cannot agree with the tactic you have chosen to oppose them with. I didn't sign the petition because I place free speech rights above the health and safety concerns...

Well thanks anyway, though.

I just exercised my right to free speech by signing a petition for a worthy cause, btw. I'm all about free speech AND health and safety. I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

I do see your point though (no I don't). If you can't go to NYC to engage in a hypothetical protest, it's better to do nothing than sign a non-hypothetical petition.

[Emet]

Originally Posted by Beth

When I read the OP, I was reminded of some of the many such campaigns run by conservative religious organizations to get material removed from various TV shows some years ago. I didn't appreciate their tactics then. Back when cable TV was still in the future, it sure felt like censorship. Even though I generally agree with the OP, I'm not going to change my mind about the use of that tactic.

Did you actually read the petition?

Quote:

CBS, Don't let Anti-vaccine Ad Threaten our Safety

Greetings CBS Outdoor,

We are asking CBS not to run Mercola and the NVIC's anti-vaccine ad in Times Square.

Mercola and the NVIC have cooperated to run an ad in Times Square on April 26. This ad directs viewers to their sites to learn more about vaccines. Upon visiting these two sites, consumers are falsely informed that vaccines cause autism, learning disabilities, seizures, cancer and death. Mercola actively encourages the public to refuse vaccines. And the NVIC works to ensure that parents have opportunity and reason to refuse vaccines for their children.

Their information is wrong. And the fear these two organizations are spreading is deadly. In the last four years, in the US alone, almost 77,000 people have been infected with vaccine preventable diseases. over 700 of those people died. According to the WHO, measles kills 200,000 people worldwide annually.

Last year, 10 babies died in California from whooping cough, deaths which were easily preventable had the people around them been vaccinated. This year, measles outbreak in Minnesota has hospitalized up to a half dozen unvaccinated children. And just this week, a school in Roanoke, VA, lax on vaccine enforcement, was closed due to at least 30 of their students and staff being infected with the pertussis virus, putting the entire community at risk; and a high school in Utah has sent home 30 students and two pregnant faculty members after a single unvaccinated student was diagnosed with measles.

As of 10 years ago, measles was considered eradicated in the United States. Now, thanks to anti-vaccine campaigns such as this one, we are seeing a resurgence.

Mercola and the NVIC's message is dangerous, even deadly. Do not let them use your screens to threaten our health and well-being.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by Emet

Did you actually read the petition?

Yes.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

I do see your point though (no I don't). If you can't go to NYC to engage in a hypothetical protest, it's better to do nothing than sign a non-hypothetical petition.

In this case, yes. One motto I have found to be more and more worthwhile as I have gotten older is "do no harm". I feel this tactic is one that causes more problems than it solves.

[Emet]

Originally Posted by Beth

Yes.

Okay. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Beth

I feel this tactic is one that causes more problems than it solves.

I respectfully disagree.

[MikeSun5]

Originally Posted by Beth

In this case, yes. One motto I have found to be more and more worthwhile as I have gotten older is "do no harm". I feel this tactic is one that causes more problems than it solves.

Still, your point is lost on me. By your logic, opposing this billboard via petition would constitute "harm."

This isn't freedom of speech versus censorship, it's healthy children versus advertising company. How is this different from opposing cartoony cigarette ads? Your logic really makes no sense.

[Kaylee]

Signed.

Originally Posted by Beth

I didn't sign the petition because I place free speech rights above the health and safety concerns of some people not vaccinating for some diseases. Those organizations have a right to advertise and, with truth-in-advertising laws, they cannot legally spread lies and misinformation in the ad; they can only use innuendo.

My opinion is that this is an attempt at censorship of ideas you disapprove of. Even if you are successful, that is going to be the impression that many members of the public will have regarding your campaign. I don't think that's particularly helpful if you want other people to trust what you believe about vaccinations and which sources you believe give correct and incorrect information about vaccinations.



I think this is a far superior approach. Given speech that some people in society disagree with (I don't care whether it's anti-vaccination movement or the anti-war movement) I prefer that people counter the problem with more speech rather than attempt to censor or repress others from expressing the ideas they disapprove of.

Beth, not all free speech is protected. One famous example is that it's illegal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater when you know that there is no fire.

You may be right and perhaps somehow someone can figure out how to film an anti-vac ad without actually lying -- but I don't see how.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

Still, your point is lost on me. By your logic, opposing this billboard via petition would constitute "harm."

Yes.

Quote:

This isn't freedom of speech versus censorship, it's healthy children versus advertising company. How is this different from opposing cartoony cigarette ads? Your logic really makes no sense.

It isn't different. I'm am not sure if I support those bans on cigarette advertising either. I can recall when such ads were allowed on television. I find it a tough call regarding whether our society is better or worse for the ban.

Originally Posted by Emet

Okay. Thanks.

I respectfully disagree.

As you are entitled to do. I realize my feelings on the matter have never been with the majority.

Originally Posted by Kaylee

Signed.


Beth, not all free speech is protected. One famous example is that it's illegal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater when you know that there is no fire.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Thank you for the reminder though.

Quote:

You may be right and perhaps somehow someone can figure out how to film an anti-vac ad without actually lying -- but I don't see how.

Oh, I expect that part is relatively easy. People who produce ads have become quite skilled at not telling actual lies.

[fuelair]

signed and commented:
This ad leads people to information that is not just wrong, it is actively harmful. That is, even if done in innocence of the truth, active evil. And, since the truth is known and easily available, I cannot accept innocence - especially of CBS with its' wealth of fact-finding capabilities. I am sorry for parents of autistic children, but the evidence is very clear that the major study set "proving" a connection was a complete and utter KNOWING fraud and has been repudiated and withdrawn from the British source that published it. And no other has found any connection.

[MikeSun5]

Originally Posted by Beth

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

Still, your point is lost on me. By your logic, opposing this billboard via petition would constitute "harm."

Yes.

Who is it harming? CBS? What do you suppose this harm would entail?

Quote:

I'm am not sure if I support those bans on cigarette advertising either. I can recall when such ads were allowed on television. I find it a tough call regarding whether our society is better or worse for the ban.

How would you feel about me renting out a billboard and putting up my own lie like "drinking liquor cures AIDS"? How about a racist message? A pro-suicide message? Pornography?

I mean, I'm all for sticking to your guns in an argument Beth, but your opinion seriously makes no sense to me. Opposing a billboard will harm CBS? I don't get it. How? Will it give them measels?

Also, signing a petition is a direct form of democracy, not some covert method of censoring free speech.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

Who is it harming? CBS? What do you suppose this harm would entail?

Who is Walmart harming when they refuse to carry music or books they don't approve of?

Quote:

How would you feel about me renting out a billboard and putting up my own lie like "drinking liquor cures AIDS"?

Lies in advertising are forbidden by law.

Quote:

How about a racist message? A pro-suicide message? Pornography?

I wouldn't care for any of them, but what I do and don't like is not sufficient to justify forbidding such messages.

Quote:

I mean, I'm all for sticking to your guns in an argument Beth, but your opinion seriously makes no sense to me. Opposing a billboard will harm CBS? I don't get it. How? Will it give them measels?

No, it doesn't harm CBS. It harms Mercola and the NVIC. I realize that you probably don't care about harming those organizations, but like all free speech issues, when unpopular speech is allowed, I know my own rights in that regard will be safe.

Quote:

Also, signing a petition is a direct form of democracy, not some covert method of censoring free speech.

Yes, signing a petition is a direct from of democracy. I don't object to petitions. I'm just not signing this one.

The request that this particular petition is making that is an attempt at censorship. The petition is asking for CBS to deny certain groups the ability to purchase advertising based on what those groups advocate. I don't support that.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Beth

While I basically agree with the above, I cannot agree with the tactic you have chosen to oppose them with. I didn't sign the petition because I place free speech rights above the health and safety concerns of some people not vaccinating for some diseases. Those organizations have a right to advertise and, with truth-in-advertising laws, they cannot legally spread lies and misinformation in the ad; they can only use innuendo.

But they are spreading misinformation - and it's misinformation of a particularly dangerous form.

More broadly, this kind of speech is definitely not free - the ad was bought for a considerable amount of money! Most individuals and organizations do not have the resources to buy a competing ad, or even get to Times square to protest. But they can express themselves by making it clear they disapprove of the message.

This petition cannot prevent people anyone from expressing themselves as individuals, or protesting, or putting signs up in their yards - it just makes it more expensive for rich organizations to buy advertisements. So while I respect your point of view, I'm hard-pressed to see how it infringes on anyone's freedom of speech.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

But they are spreading misinformation - and it's misinformation of a particularly dangerous form.

I'm not arguing this point.

Quote:

More broadly, this kind of speech is definitely not free - the ad was bought for a considerable amount of money! Most individuals and organizations do not have the resources to buy a competing ad, or even get to Times square to protest. But they can express themselves by making it clear they disapprove of the message.

Yes. That's why I support the tactic advocated in post number 10.

Quote:

This petition cannot prevent people anyone from expressing themselves as individuals, or protesting, or putting signs up in their yards - it just makes it more expensive for rich organizations to buy advertisements. So while I respect your point of view, I'm hard-pressed to see how it infringes on anyone's freedom of speech.

I'm not following you here. The petition is not asking CBS to increase the price of the advertising to certain groups, it's asking them not to sell advertisement time/space to a certain group. I consider a campaign to keep certain groups from advertising their existance or their message an attempt at censorship.

Let me ask this: How would you feel about a petition asking CBS not to allow the American Atheists Society to purchase advertising space on the Jumbotron? Would you consider that an attempt at censorship?

[LarianLeQuella]

These anti-vax pro-disease nutters should be put on trial for involuntary manslaughter every time someone dies from a preventable disease... Grr, they just make me so angry...

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Common does not get a petition ignored. The number of signers matters to commercial and political targets.

I find Snopes' arguments on the matter to be very convincing.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Beth

I'm not following you here. The petition is not asking CBS to increase the price of the advertising to certain groups, it's asking them not to sell advertisement time/space to a certain group.

I don't think there's a difference. If CBS doesn't show this ad, it will be because they believe they risk losing more money to lost advertising revenue and viewer displeasure than they will earn from the price of the ad. But if the organization were to offer more money, that calculation would shift. Moreover, CBS does not have a monopoly on advertising space. With enough resources, I guarantee you this group will be able to show their ad, petition or no. It just might be more expensive.

Quote:

Let me ask this: How would you feel about a petition asking CBS not to allow the American Atheists Society to purchase advertising space on the Jumbotron? Would you consider that an attempt at censorship?

I would oppose such a petition, but I do not consider it censorship. Quite the contrary.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

I don't think there's a difference. If CBS doesn't show this ad, it will be because they believe they risk losing more money to lost advertising revenue and viewer displeasure than they will earn from the price of the ad. But if the organization were to offer more money, that calculation would shift. Moreover, CBS does not have a monopoly on advertising space. With enough resources, I guarantee you this group will be able to show their ad, petition or no. It just might be more expensive.

I would oppose such a petition, but I do not consider it censorship. Quite the contrary.

Okay. We just disagree regarding what constitutes censorship then.

[MikeSun5]

Originally Posted by Beth

Who is Walmart harming when they refuse to carry music or books they don't approve of?

Stores can sell whatever they choose to sell. This is about advertising lies.

Quote:

Lies in advertising are forbidden by law.

Sweet! Then we don't even need this stinkin' petition! We need a lawyer.

Quote:

I wouldn't care for any of them, but what I do and don't like is not sufficient to justify forbidding such messages.

Point well taken. I was in Kansas City once and saw those aborted fetus pictures all over semi trucks. Completely unnecessary.

Quote:

I realize that you probably don't care about harming those organizations, but like all free speech issues, when unpopular speech is allowed, I know my own rights in that regard will be safe.

The thing about those organizations is not that their speech is "unpopular" so much as "untrue." And no, I don't care about harming those organizations because they are directly responsible for harming children of uneducated parents.

Quote:

The petition is asking for CBS to deny certain groups the ability to purchase advertising based on what those groups advocate. I don't support that.

That's a completely understandable position. However, these groups aren't advocating something we just disagree with. They're advocating something that is actually wrong.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

Stores can sell whatever they choose to sell. This is about advertising lies.

No, it's not. I just watched the ad. You can see it at respectful insolence.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...ds_on.php#more

There are no lies in that ad. However, if by 'advertising lies' you mean that they are advertising a site that will tell them lies, well, yes. I assume that is true for many, if not most websites advertised. I doubt BP was telling the whole truth about the oil spill last year either when their ads direct me to their website.

Quote:

Sweet! Then we don't even need this stinkin' petition! We need a lawyer.

If you can catch them lying in an advertisement, notify the district attorney.

Quote:

Point well taken. I was in Kansas City once and saw those aborted fetus pictures all over semi trucks. Completely unnecessary.

Thanks. I felt similarly about those ads.

Quote:

The thing about those organizations is not that their speech is "unpopular" so much as "untrue." And no, I don't care about harming those organizations because they are directly responsible for harming children of uneducated parents.

Parents are responsible for their children. Certainly, those organizations influence a great many parents into making decisions you don't like, but ultimately those parents have the responsibility for whatever choices they have made.

Quote:

That's a completely understandable position. However, these groups aren't advocating something we just disagree with. They're advocating something that is actually wrong.

I gotta disagree with you there. I've heard that line from too many Fundamentalist Christians. If what they are advocating is wrong, you battle it by explaining why it's wrong, not by attempting to silence the advocates. I do not think this tactic is helpful in swaying public opinion the direction you would like it to move.

Consider this, respectful insolence did a blog post on it and included a link to the ad. That means that even more people are going to see the ad through his blog. Further, the ad itself is pretty innocuous. All in all, I think his blog and the petition just provide further publicity for those organizations. They get more traffic to their website as a result.

[godless dave]

The right to free speech does not obligate CBS to air this ad on equipment they own.

The people behind this ad have every right to produce an ad, and we have every right to tell CBS why we think they shouldn't air it. There is no free speech issue here.

[Alan]

They've already started.
http://skepchick.org/2011/04/urgent-...e-help-needed/

[Beth]

Originally Posted by godless dave

The right to free speech does not obligate CBS to air this ad on equipment they own.

The people behind this ad have every right to produce an ad, and we have every right to tell CBS why we think they shouldn't air it. There is no free speech issue here.

Did you feel the same way about the groups that protested atheist ads on buses and billboards?

I agree with you by the way. I think that CBS is not obligated to agree to air their ad and you have every right to express to CBS why you think they should not. I just think that what you are asking CBS to do is censorship.