CBS Censors Moveon.org's Winning Bush in 30 Seconds Ad

[Maclarny]

I am a member of Moveon.org and the recent email I received enraged me. In Moveon.org's Bush in 30 Seconds Ad contest over 2000 people sent in entries in the hopes that their ad would be presented during the Superbowl. The winning ad "Child's Pay" has been censored by CBS saying it's too controversial. Watch the Ad here (http://www.moveon.org/cbs/ad/) and sign the petition to tell CBS that censoring ads is a step in the wrong direction!

[zimv20]

damn that liberal mainstream media! look how liberal they are!

[Dont Hurt Me]

good old bill yeah the one from the no spin zone showed that commercial and he busted on CBS for not showing it. Bill tells it like he sees it but he didnt tell me about George's big spending habits.

[Frohickey]

Wonder why CBS didn't take it.

If I were CBS, and MoveOn.org can pay the advertising fee, I'd air it.

On the other hand, I doubt that CBS will be airing dead time, so, they probably have a surplus of customers willing to pay the ad-fee.

[Dont Hurt Me]

politics at cbs. this add hits home and the way george is throwing around our tax dollars our childrens,children will be paying for it. a very good add showing a very good point CBS has screwed up again.

[Maclarny]

Wow, I'm surprised Bill O'Reily actually railed on CBS for censoring the ad.

[Macmaniac]

I really liked that ad, it was not one of those horrible HE VOTED FOR THIS EVIL LAW kind of ads.
I guess they were afraid that the truth told by honest hardworking independent film makers, instead of these huge political ad machines.

[Maclarny]

Originally posted by Macmaniac
I really liked that ad, it was not one of those horrible HE VOTED FOR THIS EVIL LAW kind of ads.
I guess they were afraid that the truth told by honest hardworking independent film makers, instead of these huge political ad machines.

That's what really astonished me. That ad had nothing malicious in it. It didn't compare Bush to Hitler and it didn't make him seem like an evil dictator. It just was an honest, truthful, and heartfelt ad made by some dedicated people who want their message heard.

[Frohickey]

Hmm...
Saw the ad...

Had kids doing manual labor...
...washing dishes
...vaccuming hotel corridor
...collecting trash
...changing tires from a wheel
...end quote is who will be paying the deficit.

The disingenious part is using kids.
I guess using adults doing the same thing but with a caption saying 2010 or 2020 as the year wouldn't be the same, but it would be more accurate.

[Rower_CPU]

MoveOn's response (http://www.moveon.org/cbs/ad/)

[IJ Reilly]

The clear message is that our kids will be paying for the Bush deficits with their labors. This is not the least bit disingenuous, since it is true. In fact this seems to be about the most direct and accurate political ad I've seen in some time.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Hmm...
Saw the ad...

Had kids doing manual labor...
...washing dishes
...vaccuming hotel corridor
...collecting trash
...changing tires from a wheel
...end quote is who will be paying the deficit.

The disingenious part is using kids.
I guess using adults doing the same thing but with a caption saying 2010 or 2020 as the year wouldn't be the same, but it would be more accurate.

Oh suddenly we're demanding truth in advertising! And I hate to break it to you, but kids now most certainly will be paying taxes in 2020. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

[denjeff]

just another proof of how media is controlled by the government... it is a too convincing add, that s the real problem i think.

wonder if CBS could be sued if they would put it on air, it could be a violation of the patriot act...

the USA were on the 17th place of a list about freedom of press (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=4116). i don t know, but 17th is very low for a country that claims that "freedom of speech" is their most basic right and claims that it is the land of the free... wonder at which place they will be next time... better or worse then Iraq?

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by denjeff
just another proof of how media is controlled by the government... it is a too convincing add, that s the real problem i think.


I don't know if this is evidence of direct government control over the media - I just think CBS is sensitive to controversy, especially after the whole Reagan MiniSeries disastor in which they incurred countless right-wing attacks, and even calls for a boycott, before anyone had even seen the show.

While this ad is tasteful, and accurate, as Bill O'Reilly was quick to point out, the entire MoveOn organization has already fallen under attack from the right for those two Hitler comparison ads that slipped through the cracks. And even though those ads weren't endorsed by the organization, and really have no effect on the chosen ad, CBS is sensitive to the very likely attacks from the right over associating in any way with an organization accused of comparing Bush to Hitler, and I am sure the threat of a right-wing boycott of the Super Bowl wouldn't be out of the question (although it would most likely be very ineffective - go Pats!).

Davis

[zimv20]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
I don't know if this is evidence of direct government control over the media[...] CBS is sensitive to the very likely attacks from the right [...] the threat of a right-wing boycott of the Super Bowl wouldn't be out of the question

is there even really a difference between direct control and intimidation if the results are the same?

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by zimv20
is there even really a difference between direct control and intimidation if the results are the same?

Yeah, I'd say so - I mean subtly - no matter what it's obviously crappy, and illustrates the sorry state of the way we do things.

But one is creepy*, not to mention illegal, and unconstitutional (the direct control) and the other is strictly economic (the intimidation of consummer revolt). Neither is excusable - the difference lies only in the methods we need to take in order to fight it. We don't need to work for change in the way our government works, we need change in the economy of mass communication.

Bitching about government control of the media is lame cause it's not true. Bitching about the ways in which the economy of media has pushed the democracy out of communication is effective cause it is true, and it needs to be changed; quickly.

Davis

*EDIT: Sorry, both are creepy.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
While this ad is tasteful, and accurate, as Bill O'Reilly was quick to point out, the entire MoveOn organization has already fallen under attack from the right for those two Hitler comparison ads that slipped through the cracks. And even though those ads weren't endorsed by the organization, and really have no effect on the chosen ad, CBS is sensitive to the very likely attacks from the right over associating in any way with an organization accused of comparing Bush to Hitler, and I am sure the threat of a right-wing boycott of the Super Bowl wouldn't be out of the question (although it would most likely be very ineffective - go Pats!).

So what you're saying is, CBS is banning all MoveOn.org ads because of something one of their members once said.

[denjeff]

the way the control is made is just a proof of how sick it has become.

compare it to a situation like china. in china press isn t free, because if they write the wrong stuff, they get arrested (btw in the article i referred to in my previous reply, the same is said about USA press). they live in a constant fear for their life
in the USA, if press does something wrong, they fear not their life, but the life of their company. the bucks follow the right (in both senses) opinion.

the same situation happens with countries... if they don t follow the USA, they loose support and investments from the USA. it s a very clever system, i think, but politically incorrect, that s for sure. who profits out of it? big companies and the big bucks, just those people who support election campains...

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
So what you're saying is, CBS is banning all MoveOn.org ads because of something one of their members once said.

Directly, no - indirectly, yes.

I'm saying I think it's more likely CBS is not airing this ad because they fear the reprecussions from certain right-wing groups, who will surely push at least some sort of uprising against CBS for showing this ad, much like they did in the Reagan situation. So, directly speaking, CBS is choosing not to air the ad because of the fear of this controversy and social revolt.

Now, since the assumed right-wing protest would be because of something one of the MoveOn members once said (or more, did, and showed), then, indirectly, what you said is true.

I don't think we can say CBS's decision to not run this ad is the result of a judgement call they themselves made on its content (as in a call in which they decided whether or not they agreed with it's message), or on the group which produced it. It is more likely that a coporate commercial entity such as CBS has made it's decision based on corporate commercial reasons - namely, the fear of protest of their programming and their company.

Does this make it right? Hell no, not at all. But spitting out unfounded conspiracy theories of direct and dilberate government control over media organizations is a quick way to make yourself come off as a member of the tinfoil-hat brigade, eventually causing people to steer away from the true problem at hand, that being the anti-democratic economics of the mass media.

It's a business issue, not a government issue, and should be treated as such.

Davis

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Oh suddenly we're demanding truth in advertising! And I hate to break it to you, but kids now most certainly will be paying taxes in 2020. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Since I'm not part of CBS, there is no sour grapes on my part.

I'm just saying that the imagery of kids doing the work is disingenuous. I did qualify that a more accurate image would be adults doing the work, with a date caption at the bottom.

Sure, a parent of one of these kids would say 'Look at my baby working to pay for Bush's deficit spending', but that baby would be an adult.

[g5man]

The reason CBS declined the ad is because they know it is not true. They are not in the business of advertising the lies of some left wing nutty organization regardless of how much money they are willing to pay. The media coverage of the campaign will give plenty of air time to those allegations

The kids will not be paying for the deficit because it will be gone in less than 10 years. They will be payin if all those democratic candidates raise taxes and start those trillion dollar social health care blunders.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by g5man
The kids will not be paying for the deficit because it will be gone in less than 10 years. They will be payin if all those democratic candidates raise taxes and start those trillion dollar social health care blunders.


I haven't seen much evidence that the deficit will be gone that fast. And only one candidate, Dennis Kucinich, has proposed a trillion dollar, nationwide health care proposal. The next most expensive one is Dean's at 93 billion, a good 907 Billion short of a trillion.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by denjeff
compare it to a situation like china. in china press isn t free, because if they write the wrong stuff, they get arrested (btw in the article i referred to in my previous reply, the same is said about USA press). they live in a constant fear for their life
in the USA, if press does something wrong, they fear not their life, but the life of their company. the bucks follow the right (in both senses) opinion.


I see it as fair.

Hear me out and you might see my point.

1st Amendment says that Congress has the prohibition from regulating the press/speech/religion. Since the only thing Congress can do is make laws, its prohibited from making laws that regulate the press/speech/religion.

So, clearly, the government is not involved here. The issue here is that a private enterprise, CBS, has exercised their property rights, to not air the MoveOn.org ad. I'm sure that CBS has calculated in their collective mind what the adverse reaction to airing such an ad would do to their bottom line.

So, if CBS is watching out for its own profitability, then maybe it would actually air the MoveOn.org ad if it were more profitable, enough so to counteract the adverse reaction. (In essence, if MoveOn.org were to offer some larger sum, a sum large enough to CBS that they would be willing to take the potential for adverse reaction, then we would not be having this thread.)

Of course, MoveOn.org could also buy their own television station. Then, it could do with its property as it pleases.

What we have here is a business deal that was not consummated. This stuff happens all the time.

Move on folks, nothing to see here. :D

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I see it as fair.

Hear me out and you might see my point.

1st Amendment says that Congress has the prohibition from regulating the press/speech/religion. Since the only thing Congress can do is make laws, its prohibited from making laws that regulate the press/speech/religion.

So, clearly, the government is not involved here. The issue here is that a private enterprise, CBS, has exercised their property rights, to not air the MoveOn.org ad. I'm sure that CBS has calculated in their collective mind what the adverse reaction to airing such an ad would do to their bottom line.

So, if CBS is watching out for its own profitability, then maybe it would actually air the MoveOn.org ad if it were more profitable, enough so to counteract the adverse reaction. (In essence, if MoveOn.org were to offer some larger sum, a sum large enough to CBS that they would be willing to take the potential for adverse reaction, then we would not be having this thread.)

Of course, MoveOn.org could also buy their own television station. Then, it could do with its property as it pleases.

What we have here is a business deal that was not consummated. This stuff happens all the time.

Move on folks, nothing to see here. :D

You've basically got it right, here - a good anlysis of the economic situation.

The only problem with this set-up, and there's no doubt this is the set-up we currently have, is that the airwaves are, by definition, a property of the public. Commercial entities such as CBS only lease the airwaves from us, the public, and are, traditionally, supposed to operate the airwaves in accordance of the public good.

The deregulation of the media industry has lessened this public-airwaves stipulation to the point that it is now almost forgotten. This is why the economics of the situation are such a problem. If CBS was living up to the original standards of broadcasting - the leased airwaves being used for a public good - they would air the MoveOn ad. Unfortunately, they aren't operating in this way, instead choosing to make all decisions relative to the profit motive - a fine, progressive idea in a truly private realm, but in the public realm of the airwaves it only f-s things up.

Davis

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Since I'm not part of CBS, there is no sour grapes on my part.

I'm just saying that the imagery of kids doing the work is disingenuous. I did qualify that a more accurate image would be adults doing the work, with a date caption at the bottom.

Sure, a parent of one of these kids would say 'Look at my baby working to pay for Bush's deficit spending', but that baby would be an adult.

Lol, funny time you pick to start whining about the imagery in political ads being 'disingenuous'! I suppose you thought it was appropriate to compare Max Cleland to Osama though right? 'Cuz thats accurate...

So the next time there's an ad on for Dubya that says "I'm a uniter, not a divider" will you be first in line to demand a tag line at the bottom that states "No uniting implied by this statement."?

[Maclarny]

I'm glad to see one of my political threads has actually inspired a response :D

[Jack T.]

Isn't MoveOn.org closely associated with Communist Party USA? Seems like I read something recently about CPUSA and MoveOn doing fundraising together. . .

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
You've basically got it right, here - a good anlysis of the economic situation.

The only problem with this set-up, and there's no doubt this is the set-up we currently have, is that the airwaves are, by definition, a property of the public. Commercial entities such as CBS only lease the airwaves from us, the public, and are, traditionally, supposed to operate the airwaves in accordance of the public good.

The deregulation of the media industry has lessened this public-airwaves stipulation to the point that it is now almost forgotten. This is why the economics of the situation are such a problem. If CBS was living up to the original standards of broadcasting - the leased airwaves being used for a public good - they would air the MoveOn ad. Unfortunately, they aren't operating in this way, instead choosing to make all decisions relative to the profit motive - a fine, progressive idea in a truly private realm, but in the public realm of the airwaves it only f-s things up.

Davis

Isn't MoveOn.org free to lease public-airwaves like CBS has?
There is ABC, NBC, and other stations as well. There is also PBS, which is the Public Broadcasting System, which would be more in line with what MoveOn.org wants to do.

I think that if MoveOn.org were to offer $1 billion to CBS, CBS would take that ad, and ask for seconds and thirds...

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Jack T.
Isn't MoveOn.org closely associated with Communist Party USA? Seems like I read something recently about CPUSA and MoveOn doing fundraising together. . .

NO - where did you come up with that nonsense! MoveOn came about in response to the impeachment of Clinton. The good folks at MoveOn are not working for the CPUSA no matter what Rush Limbaugh or others might say.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Isn't MoveOn.org free to lease public-airwaves like CBS has?
There is ABC, NBC, and other stations as well. There is also PBS, which is the Public Broadcasting System, which would be more in line with what MoveOn.org wants to do.

I think that if MoveOn.org were to offer $1 billion to CBS, CBS would take that ad, and ask for seconds and thirds...

Yeah sure, if they had the money (they don't, no one does, that's why there are only 5 media companies in control of almost all the airwaves). And if they did lease the airwaves from us, then they, too, would be expected to broadcast material in accordance with a democratic public good.

Davis

[Jack T.]

Originally posted by Sayhey
NO - where did you come up with that nonsense! MoveOn came about in response to the impeachment of Clinton. The good folks at MoveOn are not working for the CPUSA no matter what Rush Limbaugh or others might say.

Really? I am 95% certain that CPUSA prominently (favorably) displayed a link to MoveOn on their website. . .

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Jack T.
Really? I am 95% certain that CPUSA prominently (favorably) displayed a link to MoveOn on their website. . .

Proof please.... Wild accusations are frowned upon here.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Jack T.
Really? I am 95% certain that CPUSA prominently (favorably) displayed a link to MoveOn on their website. . .

If I link to whitehouse.gov from my site, does that mean that Dubya endorses me or is in any way affiliated with what I do? :confused:

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Proof please.... Wild accusations are frowned upon here.

CPUSA Alert #1 (http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/515/)

CPUSA Alert #10 (http://cpusa.org/article/static/563/)

The Ombudsgod (http://www.ombudsgod.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_ombudsgod_archive.html)
Meanwhile, in an advertisement on the MoveOn.org website, an organization that once shared office space with the Communist Party USA (CPUSA),... CIRCUMSTANTIAL

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
Yeah sure, if they had the money (they don't, no one does, that's why there are only 5 media companies in control of almost all the airwaves). And if they did lease the airwaves from us, then they, too, would be expected to broadcast material in accordance with a democratic public good.

Davis

So, what you are saying is that CBS is not acting in the public good in not selling ad-time to MoveOn.org. And if there are only 5 media companies, couldn't MoveOn.org shop around and ask the other 4 as well?

And, if CBS is 20% of the public airwaves, and they are not operating in the public good, how long do you think before there would be an outcry for CBS not being good stewards of the airwaves. Clearly, its not at that point, with their denying MoveOn.org

Sit down, shut up, and write a big enough check... otherwise, go away cuz you are not special and just like the rest of us.

You don't see the Libertarian party crying that they were not given air time, or the various other interest groups.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
CPUSA Alert #1 (http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/515/)

CPUSA Alert #10 (http://cpusa.org/article/static/563/)

The Ombudsgod (http://www.ombudsgod.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_ombudsgod_archive.html)
CIRCUMSTANTIAL

Much better. Now answer Rower's point.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Much better. Now answer Rower's point.

He wasn't asking me. :p

The evidence is circumstantial, but you know... once accident, twice coincidence, thrice is enemy action.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
And, if CBS is 20% of the public airwaves, and they are not operating in the public good, how long do you think before there would be an outcry for CBS not being good stewards of the airwaves. Clearly, its not at that point, with their denying MoveOn.org


So what do you think this is, an incry?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
He wasn't asking me. :p


When has that ever stopped you before?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
If I link to whitehouse.gov from my site, does that mean that Dubya endorses me or is in any way affiliated with what I do? :confused:

Depends on whether you shared the same office as Dubya has. :p

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
So what do you think this is, an incry?

What I'm saying is that MoveOn.org is making a mountain out of a molehill. Go and shop your ad to the other 4. As it is, I think this complaint about CBS is a ploy to get more contributions so that Soros can kick in $1 for every $2 that MoveOn.org gets.

There is also PBS, or they could mass mailings and other stuff. Maybe they can try for a Superbowl ad.

[Neserk]

I found CBS rejection of the ad from Move.on to be odd considering that they were the one's who were explaining just a week or so ago how the economy has actually *not* improved. :confused:

Regardless I let CBS know that I do *not* want them to become another Fox News!

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
When has that ever stopped you before?

That, and I don't have a horse in this race.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Jack T.
Really? I am 95% certain that CPUSA prominently (favorably) displayed a link to MoveOn on their website. . .

MoveOn is an organization that is in the forefront of internet organizing against the Bush administration. There are thousands of other organizations that include links to MoveOn because of the information and resources they provide. So what! Please take a hard look at both organizations and find individuals that overlap - you won't find them. The CPUSA is not a illegal organization, but the fact they link to another site sure doesn't mean they are the same or similar in ideology or tactics. What is going on here is nothing short of old McCarthyite smears. Don't fall for it and don't spread this stupid rumor around.

Frohickey, if you have more information other than the rumor you posted on the two organizations sharing an office, I'd like to see it. The two are so far apart in ideology that the accusation of influence makes no sense. Having worked in many union efforts I know something about organizations that "shared office space" and just how little that means.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Depends on whether you shared the same office as Dubya has. :p

Can you find a more biased site that backs up the shared office space claim? Or at least, where that site got the info? I take my online info with a boulder-sized grain of salt, and that site sets off red flags like nobody's business.

In order to get past the circumstantial/coincidential realm you need to show some sort of endorsement going from MoveOn back to CPUSA.

[Sayhey]

Here is a response to the idea that MoveOn is affiliated to "the World Socialist Movement."
Dear Media Corps member,

Through Fox Watch, many of you have helped monitor every single program that has aired on the cable station Fox News Channel for the past month. Those of you participating have filed hundreds and hundreds of reports about distortion, inaccuracies, and bias -- breaches of the basic standards of journalism.

Wednesday night, a Fox Watch monitor caught an outright lie during one of Fox News' flagship programs, The O'Reilly Factor. In a discussion of progressive websites, host Bill O'Reilly called TomPaine.com "the most rank propaganda in the world."

Fox News analyst Liz Trotta responded:

"Well, how many people do you think -- who look at MoveOn.org, know it's affiliated with the World Socialist Movement..."

This outrageous and false charge could only have been intended to discredit the work of MoveOn.org and its members. It is akin to the tactics of the McCarthy era.

Call on Fox News to dismiss Liz Trotta for such an utter lack of journalistic scruples:

Fox News Channel
(212) 301-3000
comments@foxnews.com

(If you're not a member of the Media Corps, click here to join. As a Media Corps member, you'll receive more alerts like this one in the future.)

After Trotta made this claim, O'Reilly sought a response from his other guest, Forbes magazine's Silicon Valley bureau chief Quentin Hardy:

HARDY: MoveOn.org -- you know, they get -- in November, according to comScore, they got 240,000 hits.

TROTTA: Do you not deny what I just said, that it is affiliated with the World Socialist Movement?

HARDY: I...

TROTTA: I mean it's right there.

Red-baiting of this sort is intended to scare people away from participating in democracy.

In addition to being a Fox News analyst, Trotta is the New York bureau chief of the Washington Times, the peculiar D.C. newspaper operated by Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church.

But no matter who she is, her statements should not be tolerated. Untrue as they are, they are meant to undermine grassroots work that Trotta and Fox News don't like.

Will Fox News hold Trotta responsible for her McCarthy-like accusations? Fox should fire Trotta for engaging in partisan deception instead of fair and balanced journalism:

Fox News Channel
(212) 301-3000
comments@foxnews.com

Remember to keep your comments polite and professional.

Sincerely,
--Noah T. Winer
__MoveOn.org
__December 19, 2003

link (http://www.moveon.org/mediacorps/mediacorps26.html)

It sounds as if the RNC and its friends are engaging dirty tactics again.

[Sayhey]

Here is the response to the smear put out directly from the RNC:

Monday, Jan. 5, 2004

ADS ATTACKED BY RNC CHAIRMAN
ARE NOT MOVEON.ORG VOTER FUND ADS

MoveOn.org Voter Fund Regrets Screening Process Allowed Ads to Slip Through

Statement by Wes Boyd, Founder of MoveOn.org Voter Fund:

The Republican National Committee and its chairman have falsely accused MoveOn.org of sponsoring ads on its website which compare President Bush to Adolf Hitler. The claim is deliberately and maliciously misleading.

During December the MoveOn.org Voter Fund invited members of the public to submit ads that purported to tell the truth about the President and his policies. More than 1,500 submissions from ordinary Americans came in and were posted on a web site, bushin30seconds.org, for the public to review.

None of these was our ad, nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund. They will not appear on TV. We do not support the sentiment expressed in the two Hitler submissions. They were voted down by our members and the public, who reviewed the ads and submitted nearly 3 million critiques in the process of choosing the 15 finalist entries.

We agree that the two ads in question were in poor taste and deeply regret that they slipped through our screening process. In the future, if we publish or broadcast raw material, we will create a more effective filtering system.

Contrast this with the behavior of the RNC and its allies when supporters of President Bush used TV ads morphing the face of Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) into that of Osama Bin Laden during the 2002 Senate race.

MoveOn.org and the MoveOn.org Voter Fund exist to bring the public into the political process and produce a more fact-based election process. We regret that the RNC doesn’t seem to embrace the same goals.

link (http://moveonvoterfund.org/smear/release.html)

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
What I'm saying is that MoveOn.org is making a mountain out of a molehill. Go and shop your ad to the other 4. As it is, I think this complaint about CBS is a ploy to get more contributions so that Soros can kick in $1 for every $2 that MoveOn.org gets.

There is also PBS, or they could mass mailings and other stuff. Maybe they can try for a Superbowl ad.

Are you really? You seemed to be allowing for an outcry before, but now that there seems to be one...

Oh, and PBS doesn't run political ads.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Sayhey
It sounds as if the RNC and its friends are engaging dirty tactics again.

Tricky Dick is smiling, wherever he is.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Tricky Dick is smiling, wherever he is.

Yeah, and his political descendants, like Karl Rove, are loving every minute spent having to dispel these lies. It's amazing folks still fall for this c**p!

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Yeah, and his political descendants, like Karl Rove, are loving every minute spent having to dispel these lies. It's amazing folks still fall for this c**p!

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." -- Alexander Hamilton

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." -- Alexander Hamilton

Never liked the pseudo-aristocrat Hamilton, but it is a very good quote.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Are you really? You seemed to be allowing for an outcry before, but now that there seems to be one...

Oh, and PBS doesn't run political ads.

What I am saying is that MoveOn.org ought to shop their ad around, and pay the money needed to get their ad aired, instead of crying foul. Though, crying foul could be the tactic to get enough money to get their ad aired.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Frohickey
What I am saying is that MoveOn.org ought to shop their ad around, and pay the money needed to get their ad aired, instead of crying foul. Though, crying foul could be the tactic to get enough money to get their ad aired.

My understanding is that MoveOn is willing to pay for the ad. It is just an arbitrary decision of the part of CBS to not allow them to air it regardless of their ability to pay.

[g5man]

Originally posted by Frohickey
What I am saying is that MoveOn.org ought to shop their ad around, and pay the money needed to get their ad aired, instead of crying foul. Though, crying foul could be the tactic to get enough money to get their ad aired.

Or it is possible they are not as big and important as they think they are. This organization will fall apart as quickly as Dean and his supporters are falling. Only Clark and Moore are still clinging on to this Titanic.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Sayhey
My understanding is that MoveOn is willing to pay for the ad. It is just an arbitrary decision of the part of CBS to not allow them to air it regardless of their ability to pay.

This was my understanding as well. I thought they wanted to run it during the Superbowl. I don't follow football, but isn't that on CBS this year?

[Neserk]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
This was my understanding as well. I thought they wanted to run it during the Superbowl. I don't follow football, but isn't that on CBS this year?

You are correct. They want to air it during the football game. *Trid to remember the rest of the story* There is a political ad being aired during the game by Conservatives. But the two progressive organization (Moveon and one other) were not allowed to air there's.

[IJ Reilly]

On NPR this morning I heard that George Soros and another wealthy contributor to Moveon.org gave them several million to pay for running the ad during the Superbowl, but CBS is says that as a matter of policy they don't run "issue ads." I don't know whether they meant just during the Superbowl, or generally.

Maybe Moveon.org should disguise their spot as a beer ad. Throw in a bunch of jiggling babes, and CBS would approve it in a flash.

[denjeff]

so from now on no more advertising on CBS for (because it is bad):

- candy (bad for the teeth)
- fast food (too much fat and cholesterol)
- beer (bad for the brain cells)
- cars (bad for the wallet and the environment)
- bush (bad for the USA's debt)
- anti-bush (bad for the image, though i still don t get why... bush was bad for the USA, so...)

CBS going politically correct :)

btw: did you know that big debts are actually good for the rich americans? debt means loan, loan from rich americans, loan with a lot of interest, more money for the rich -> all payed by the ordinary tax payer: YOU

[Neserk]

During this year's Super Bowl, you'll see ads sponsored by beer companies, tobacco companies, and the Bush White House. 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.

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, 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 the MoveOn.org 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. 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.

This is an excerpt from the email I received from Moveon

[IJ Reilly]

This charge seems a bit too glib for my tastes. Moveon.org should be careful about accusing CBS of discrimination against their political statements, unless they can demonstrate that the network's policy against running issue ads is in fact not consistently administered. I'm curious about the "Bush Whitehouse ad" they claim will be run. What's that, I wonder?

Maybe it's time for Moveon.org to take their own advice -- and not get bogged down in a losing cause. They should use their money to run that ad wherever they can get it on the air. I hope they don't let this message get drowned out. It's a terrific ad, and it should be seen, not just talked about.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly

Maybe it's time for Moveon.org to take their own advice -- and not get bogged down in a losing cause. They should use their money to run that ad wherever they can get it on the air. I hope they don't let this message get drowned out. It's a terrific ad, and it should be seen, not just talked about.

i agree. the money that would have been spent on running it once could be spent on running it several (many?) times across all the networks.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Maybe it's time for Moveon.org to take their own advice -- and not get bogged down in a losing cause. They should use their money to run that ad wherever they can get it on the air. I hope they don't let this message get drowned out. It's a terrific ad, and it should be seen, not just talked about.

If you mean for them to forget about CBS and just get time on other networks or other time slots on CBS then I don't agree. The ad can be shown elsewhere of course, and it should be, but it would be a mistake to just allow CBS to get away with its action. If the rumors are correct that there will be some kind of ad by the White House, the hypocrisy of the decision makers at CBS is all the more blatant and should be fought on principle.

Also from a tactical stand point, it doesn't hurt that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people have already heard about the ad because of the controversy before they have even seen it. If I were making the decisions over at MoveOn.org, I'd be shouting about this all the way to a much bigger audience than would normally be expected. They may not get the Super Bowl numbers but it would be more than usual.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
. I'm curious about the "Bush Whitehouse ad" they claim will be run. What's that, I wonder?


As do I. Isn't the Superbowl tonight? I guess I'll find out! If I decide to watch it. This is the one time when the commercials can be worth sticking around for :D

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Sayhey
If you mean for them to forget about CBS and just get time on other networks or other time slots on CBS then I don't agree.

Well, if CBS has a consistent policy against running issue ads, then they should not make an exception for Moveon.org, should they?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Well, if CBS has a consistent policy against running issue ads, then they should not make an exception for Moveon.org, should they?

IJ, it looks to me like CBS draws the line in some very peculiar ways.

At the same time, CBS is allowing ads placed on the docket by the White House's anti-drug office. For the third year in a row the White House has paid between $1.5 and $3 million each for 30-second spots during the broadcast. The 2004 ads, produced for the White House by Ogilvy & Mather are expected to convey a message similar to their previous Super Bowl spots. While CBS would not reveal the content of the upcoming ads, previous White House Super Bowl spots drew a controverial link between casual drug use and the financing of global terrorists.

Writing about the previous ads, LA Weekly media critic Judith Miller reported that their message plays well into Bush's anti-terror campaign because it keeps ordinary citizens under siege and the war on terror central in their minds -- an objective which in 2004 serves the president's re-election strategy well.



link (http://progressivetrail.org/articles/040117Karr.shtml)

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Sayhey
IJ, it looks to me like CBS draws the line in some very peculiar ways.
I haven't discounted that possibility. Either way, if they get themselves embroiled in a fruitless fight, they're going to come off looking like whiners. "Keep your eye on the doughnut and not on the hole," as the saying goes.

[Frohickey]

If MoveOn.org was willing to pay for the ad time, but CBS is unwilling to take the ad, maybe MoveOn.org is not giving CBS a big enough incentive to air the ad.

Tack on a few extra million, and I bet CBS will take it.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
If MoveOn.org was willing to pay for the ad time, but CBS is unwilling to take the ad, maybe MoveOn.org is not giving CBS a big enough incentive to air the ad.

Tack on a few extra million, and I bet CBS will take it.

airtime isn't an auction. CBS announces the price beforehand.

[sethypoo]

I would have loved to see that ad on TV during the SuperBowl. Sigh. Damn politics.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
airtime isn't an auction. CBS announces the price beforehand.

There is nothing forbidding MoveOn.org from offering more. CBS is a for-profit enterprise, use that to advantage.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
There is nothing forbidding MoveOn.org from offering more. CBS is a for-profit enterprise, use that to advantage.

This is not a decision based on money. It's purely politics.

And by the way, why should some speech cost more than the rest?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
This is not a decision based on money. It's purely politics.

And by the way, why should some speech cost more than the rest?

I think its a decision based on NOT ENOUGH money.

As to some speech costing more than others, it could be that by airing this ad, CBS fears it might incur some negative publicity, and it would therefore need extra revenue in order to weather the negative publicity.

At least, if I were a CBS accountant, I could come up with a number that if paid by MoveOn.org, would make it worth the company's bottom line.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

As to some speech costing more than others, it could be that by airing this ad, CBS fears it might incur some negative publicity, and it would therefore need extra revenue in order to weather the negative publicity.


would you then agree that, during the election season, CBS would be in its right to charge democratic candidates more than GOP candidates?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I think its a decision based on NOT ENOUGH money.

Nonsense. They were ready to pay the same amount as any of the other advertisers.

If an ad's potentially upsetting political nature is enough to decline its submission on TV, I would think the terrorism=pot ads would have to go along with some of the disturbing anti-tobacco ads. I would think they were in the same league as the anti-Bush ad, n'est-ce pas?

I know plenty of smokers who get pissed off by the bombardment of anti-smoking campaigns.

[mactastic]

I can just imagine the AM radio buzzing with anger if the situation was reversed, the 'liberal media' would be taking a many-times-a-day lambasting until they caved ala the Reagan mockumentary. That's MoveOn.org's problem, they need that kind of grass roots anger to keep the spotlight on CBS. Put them in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation, then offer them the money.

[zimv20]

i see truthout got an ad on CBS' superbowl. i look at that as being political.

funny ad, btw. i'm reminded of dan akroyd and his Bag O' Glass, or python's Spring Surprise.

[Rower_CPU]

From a MoveOn statement:

As you know, CBS refused to run MoveOn Voter Fund's "Child's Pay" ad -- perhaps the most tasteful and uncontroversial advocacy ad in history -- during the Super Bowl. CBS executives claimed they had a blanket policy against all so-called "issue" ads.

Yesterday, we learned that the network plans to broadcast an ad promoting the Bush Medicare prescription drug law. This is part of a $13 million taxpayer-financed TV campaign to take the heat off the White House for pushing through a drug plan that benefits drug companies and insurance companies more than Medicare recipients.

The White House ad features the tagline "Same Medicare. More Benefits." But a report by Consumers Union last month said that most people covered by Medicare will wind up spending more for prescription drugs, as a result of the provisions in the law which favor drug companies. According to the Washington Post, the campaign is intended "to counteract Democratic criticism that changes to the (Medicare) program will harm older Americans."

If that isn't a controversial issue ad, we don't know what is. But since CBS appears to be changing its policy, our Voter Fund has submitted our own Medicare ad which exposes the facts behind this spin campaign to run on CBS. So far, we haven't heard back. Please give CBS a call today to let them know that they need to either pull the White House ads or run ours.

[3rdpath]

more from the moveon group regarding the medicare ad:


There's another issue involved here that needs to be taken very seriously: if Bush's Medicare ad is intended to function as a campaign ad (and that clearly appears to be the case) then this may constitute a criminal election law violation. In fact, the ad company which made the ad which will air on CBS also works for the Bush/Cheney re-election committee. We've put in a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Health and Human Services to begin the process of establishing the facts in this case.


and yes, your tax dollars paid for this ad...ironic ain't it....