CBS has a political agenda

[darrelld]

During this year's Super Bowl, you'll see ads sponsored by beer companies,
tobacco companies, and the Bush White House.(1) But you won't see the
winning ad in MoveOn.org Voter Fund's Bush in 30 Seconds ad contest. CBS
refuses to air it.(2)

Meanwhile, the White House and Congressional Republicans are on the verge of
signing into law a deal which Senator John McCain (R-AZ) says is
custom-tailored for CBS and Fox,(3) allowing the two networks to grow much
bigger. CBS lobbied hard for this rule change; MoveOn.org members across
the country lobbied against it; and now our ad has been rejected while the
White House ad will be played. It looks an awful lot like CBS is playing
politics with the right to free speech.

Of course, this is bigger than just the MoveOn.org Voter Fund. People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) submitted an ad that was also
rejected.(4) But this isn't even a progressive-vs.-conservative issue. The
airwaves are publicly owned, so we have a fundamental right to hear
viewpoints from across the ideological spectrum. 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.

To watch the ad that CBS won't air and sign our petition to CBS, go to:
http://www.moveon.org/cbs/ad/

If you want to skip the ad and just sign the petition, go to:
http://www.moveon.org/cbs/

We'll deliver the petition by email directly to CBS headquarters.

You also may want to let your local CBS affiliate know you're unhappy about
this decision.

Remember, a polite, friendly call will be most effective -- just explain
to them why you believe CBS' decision hurts our democracy.

CBS will claim that the ad is too controversial to air. But the message of
the ad is a simple statement of fact, supported by the President's own
figures. Compared with 2002's White House ad which claimed that drug users
are supporting terrorism,(5) it hardly even registers.

CBS will also claim that this decision isn't an indication of political
bias. But given the facts, that's hard to believe. CBS overwhelmingly
favored Republicans in its political giving, and the company spent millions
courting the White House to stop FCC reform.(6) According to a
well-respected study, CBS News was second only to Fox in failing to correct
common misconceptions about the Iraq war which benefited the Bush
Administration -- for example, the idea that Saddam Hussein was involved
with 9/11.(7)

This is not a partisan issue. It's critical that our media institutions be
fair and open to all speakers. CBS is setting a dangerous precedent, and
unless we speak up, the pattern may continue. Please call on CBS to air ads
which address issues of public importance today.

Sincerely,
--Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn.org Team
January 22nd, 2003

P.S. Our friends at Free Press have put together a page which explains
simply how CBS and the FCC rule change are integrally linked. Check it out
at:
http://www.mediareform.net/media/

Footnotes:

1. "Who's Buying What At the Super Bowl," Ad Age, 1/20/04
http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=39561

2. CBS fax to MoveOn.org Voter Fund, 1/14/04

3. "Democrats Fold on 39% TV Cap Fight", Broadcasting and Cable, 1/21/04
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA376078?display=Breaking+News

4. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
http://www.peta.org/feat/superbowl/

5. "New Media Campaign Stresses Link between Drugs and Terrorism," U.S.
Dept. of State
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02020501.htm

6. OpenSecrets.org: "CBS Television Network Soft Money Donations"
http://www.moveon.org/r?482

7. "Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War," PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

 

[tallest1]

Regarding that 6th footnote, I find it kinda confusing when CBS is donating to the republican party while its parent company Viacom donates mostly to the democratic party: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=B02

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: darrelld
During this year's Super Bowl, you'll see ads sponsored by beer companies,
tobacco companies, and the Bush White House.(1) But you won't see the
winning ad in MoveOn.org Voter Fund's Bush in 30 Seconds ad contest. CBS
refuses to air it.(2)

Meanwhile, the White House and Congressional Republicans are on the verge of
signing into law a deal which Senator John McCain (R-AZ) says is
custom-tailored for CBS and Fox,(3) allowing the two networks to grow much
bigger. CBS lobbied hard for this rule change; MoveOn.org members across
the country lobbied against it; and now our ad has been rejected while the
White House ad will be played. It looks an awful lot like CBS is playing
politics with the right to free speech.

Of course, this is bigger than just the MoveOn.org Voter Fund. People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) submitted an ad that was also
rejected.(4) But this isn't even a progressive-vs.-conservative issue. The
airwaves are publicly owned, so we have a fundamental right to hear
viewpoints from across the ideological spectrum. 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.

To watch the ad that CBS won't air and sign our petition to CBS, go to:
http://www.moveon.org/cbs/ad/

If you want to skip the ad and just sign the petition, go to:
http://www.moveon.org/cbs/

We'll deliver the petition by email directly to CBS headquarters.

You also may want to let your local CBS affiliate know you're unhappy about
this decision.

Remember, a polite, friendly call will be most effective -- just explain
to them why you believe CBS' decision hurts our democracy.

CBS will claim that the ad is too controversial to air. But the message of
the ad is a simple statement of fact, supported by the President's own
figures. Compared with 2002's White House ad which claimed that drug users
are supporting terrorism,(5) it hardly even registers.

CBS will also claim that this decision isn't an indication of political
bias. But given the facts, that's hard to believe. CBS overwhelmingly
favored Republicans in its political giving, and the company spent millions
courting the White House to stop FCC reform.(6) According to a
well-respected study, CBS News was second only to Fox in failing to correct
common misconceptions about the Iraq war which benefited the Bush
Administration -- for example, the idea that Saddam Hussein was involved
with 9/11.(7)

This is not a partisan issue. It's critical that our media institutions be
fair and open to all speakers. CBS is setting a dangerous precedent, and
unless we speak up, the pattern may continue. Please call on CBS to air ads
which address issues of public importance today.

Sincerely,
--Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn.org Team
January 22nd, 2003

P.S. Our friends at Free Press have put together a page which explains
simply how CBS and the FCC rule change are integrally linked. Check it out
at:
http://www.mediareform.net/media/

Footnotes:

1. "Who's Buying What At the Super Bowl," Ad Age, 1/20/04
http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=39561

2. CBS fax to MoveOn.org Voter Fund, 1/14/04

3. "Democrats Fold on 39% TV Cap Fight", Broadcasting and Cable, 1/21/04
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA376078?display=Breaking+News

4. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
http://www.peta.org/feat/superbowl/

5. "New Media Campaign Stresses Link between Drugs and Terrorism," U.S.
Dept. of State
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02020501.htm

6. OpenSecrets.org: "CBS Television Network Soft Money Donations"
http://www.moveon.org/r?482

7. "Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War," PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

 

[AntaresVI]

This is not a partisan issue. It's critical that our media institutions be fair and open to all speakers.

Perhaps in the arena of news coverage, but certainly not in the area of non-campaign advertising. Should CBS run ads for ABC too?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Thanks for the insightful commentary. It's almost worth pointlessly quoting 90 lines of text.

 

[wkabel23]

Perhaps you're getting political agenda mixed up with (in CBS' eyes) good business practices.

CBS won't air things that lash out at the president because they know a good portion of their audience supports the president. Nothing factual to prove this, but i'm willing to bet CBS knows who the audience will be during the Super Bowl, some ideas about their views, etc. Why air ads that will alienate a large base of people? They do these things for the same reason they don't air advertisements for shows on ABC and NBC, to KEEP/GAIN viewers, not to LOSE them.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: nutxo

Thanks for the insightful commentary. It's almost worth pointlessly quoting 90 lines of text.

I pretty much stated what wkabel did, as i did once before when this issue was first discussed. Then I thought "why bother?"

 

[tcsenter]

From my response in the OT Forum:

They're not censoring it just because it's anti-Bush. I read that CBS's policy is not to run any "controversial" ads during the Super Bowl, and I think this includes any political ads.

CBS's policy is not to run any politically-charged advocacy ads on its network at any time except those it is obligated by federal law to accept during an election year.

"We do not accept advertising on one side or the other of controversial public issues, partly because we don't think the debate ought to be controlled by people with deep pockets," said Martin Franks, CBS executive vice president.

The reason you don't hear about the right having their spots refused during the Super Bowl is because only the left completely lacks all tact, dignity, and decorum that would cause principled minds to find such a viciously partisan and inflammatory advertisment improper and objectionable.

The networks have been refusing to sell airtime to the National Rifle Association for years, even for the most innocuous, apolitical, utterly non-controversial firearm safety spots during off-peak airtime. Never a complaint or objection from the left to be heard about the networks "censoring" the right, of course.

 

[Ferocious]

The reason you don't hear about the right having their spots refused during the Super Bowl is because only the left completely lacks all tact, dignity, and decorum that would cause principled minds to find such a viciously partisan and inflammatory advertisment improper and objectionable.

 

[chess9]

This is probably MOSTLY a business decision to not alienate conservative viewers. But I stand by my previous view that Viacom, and much of the media is owned by right wing Daddy Warbucks types.

Firearm advertising is very, very controversial and is hardly a good example of the network's refusal to air conservative groups' commercials. I support gun ownership, with reasonable limits, but I would not want to see the gun industry sell what is left of its soul to the devil the way the pharmaceutical industry has. When they start advertising Glocks the way they advertise Prilosec, we will know Gingrich won, but the death of television will not be far behind. I rarely turn the beast on as it is....

-Robert

 

[Nietzscheusw]

C(ensorship)BS

The truth about Bush shall not be aired.

In the USSR the truth was censored, too.

 

[tcsenter]

Firearm advertising is very, very controversial and is hardly a good example of the network's refusal to air conservative groups' commercials. I support gun ownership, with reasonable limits, but I would not want to see the gun industry sell what is left of its soul to the devil the way the pharmaceutical industry has.

Ummm...the National Rifle Association doesn't sell guns. It doesn't make guns. It doesn't advertise guns.

Hardly controversial, let alone "very very", the National Rifle Association wanted to air a PSA-type advert dealing with one of its founding missions - promoting safe firearm handling and storage practices - that have been endorsed by firearm safety experts, firearm instructors, and law enforcement.

 

[Moonbeam]

What is the National Rifle? I know the national bird.

 

[chess9]

TCS:

I understand the difference, but the NRA promotes the gun industry's propaganda. And that is even worse than ads by gun manufacturers. I wouldn't want to see ads for abortion for the very same reason. Ditto for "The Purple Pill".

However, I do support gun ownership with controls.

My apologies to darrelld for appearing to steer his thread into a gun discussion.

-Robert

 

[DealMonkey]

Hey, perhaps MoveOn can just buy their own TV or Radio station just like the NRA? Then they can run as many political ads as they want as a "legitimate media organization" and wouldn't have to deal with any of those pesky campaign finance laws.

WASHINGTON - Hoping to spend as much as it wants on next year's elections, the National Rifle Association is looking to buy a television or radio station and declare that it should be treated as a news organization, exempt from spending limits in the campaign finance law.

...

If the NRA were to be considered a media organization, it would be free to say what it wanted about candidates at any time and spend corporate money to do so, such as for commercials.

The group, financed in part with corporate money, is now banned under the campaign finance law from running ads, just before elections, that mention federal candidates who are on states' ballots.

link

 

[tcsenter]

I understand the difference, but the NRA promotes the gun industry's propaganda. And that is even worse than ads by gun manufacturers. I wouldn't want to see ads for abortion for the very same reason. Ditto for "The Purple Pill".

Again, I keep telling you "A" and you respond about "Z".

Ok, let me try bold type this time. Not wanting to accuse you of being a complete idiot straight off, I'm trying to think of alternative explanations for your apparent inability to read. Maybe you can't discern regular type very well?

I am not talking about abortion ads, or anti-homosexual ads, or gun sale ads, or ads promoting firearms be sold in vending machines at elementary schools, or any other politically-charged advocacy issues. The NRA is denied airtime for utterly apolitical and uncontroversial PSA-type spots promoting safe firearm handling and storage practices universally endorsed by qualified firearm instructors and law enforcement agencies.

The NRA doesn't promote the gun industry's propaganda, it promotes the 'propaganda' of its 3.5 million members and the tens of millions of firearm owners in the US, the same propaganda it was founded to promote in 1871.

The gun industry has its own organizations through which it engages in political lobbying and other propaganda purposes; the National Shooting Sports Foundation, National Association of Federally Licensed Firearm Dealers, Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturer's Institute, and one other major industry organization I'm forgetting.

While there is inescapable parallel if not convergence between the interests of firearm owners and firearm manufacturers, this is no different than the parallel or convergence of interests that exists between fisherman and the companies who make the products fisherman like to use; or auto enthusiasts and the companies who make the products they like to use; or fitness enthusiasts and the companies who make the products they like to use; [insert 10,000 other examples here].

Promoting the interests of cycling enthusiasts will inevitably promote the interests of the cycling industry, but that is not the same as saying the Adventure Cycling Association is a front-group who promotes the propaganda of the 'Cycling Industry'.

You either know that, and are being deliberately dishonest, or you don't know it, and are speaking on matters about which you seem to be fairly ignorant. Only you know which is the case.

 

[DealMonkey]

Certainly the NRA wields significant political power and can swing the vote for or against a candidate just as much, if not moreso, than MoveOn. Do you have a link to either the CBS policy statements you're referring to or more info about CBS refusing NRA ads?

 

[tcsenter]

Certainly the NRA wields significant political power and can swing the vote for or against a candidate just as much, if not moreso, than MoveOn.

And this would be relevant...why?

Do you have a link to either the CBS policy statements you're referring to or more info about CBS refusing NRA ads?

I stated "networks" have been denying access to the NRA for years, not CBS in particular. This is so old now, I think the NRA may have stopped trying. With the media being 'rightwing', why am I not surprised you have never heard it before? But when a radical leftwing group is denied, its all over the press because - you know - the media is rightwing.

Unlikely Alliances Forged in Fight Over Media Rules - Washington Post:

"Wayne R. LaPierre Jr., president of the NRA, said he had no problem siding with CodePink on this issue, saying his group routinely has ads rejected by what he calls ideologically opposed television networks and stations."

I found a perfect example of why few have heard of the NRA being denied network airtime before. Try to stretch what little sense of conviction in the First Amendment you have around the following grotesque but unabashed demonstration of fascism by this thumb-sucking [and fairly typical] liberal:

For once, the NRA just might be right by Andrew Lisa; May 24, 2003, The Daily Journal

With almost no debate or public input, the FCC -- conveniently headed by Colin Powell's son, Michael -- is set to remove decades-old rules that regulate what the few remaining media giants can and can't do. As if the puddle disguised as this country's pool of information needed to be made any shallower.

[....]

That pretty much means that by June 3, whoever has the money and the power will be allowed to make sure he's the only one talking.

[....]

In recent weeks, the NRA has sent thousands of postcards to the FCC, explaining that they would be none too happy about living in a country where a few corporations would control the hearts and minds of nearly all Americans. A letter sent from the NRA to its members explained that, "A small group of top media executives could literally silence your NRA."

And I'd be fine with that if I thought the NRA would be the only casualty. But they won't be....

Nothing left to the imagination there.

"The First Amendment should be zealously protected (except speech that is incompatible with the leftist viewpoint)."