From Moveon.org's Eli Pariser: "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 is 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 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, click here.)
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. We've attached a list of the CBS affiliates in your state at the bottom of this email. 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"
Previous Comments
- ID
- 136986
- Comment
Just when I was getting over my Orwellian-inspired paranoia, it crashes back like a tsunami...
- Author
- kaust
- Date
- 2004-01-22T17:34:35-06:00
- ID
- 136987
- Comment
Yeah, that damned liberal media snuffing out conservative ideas again.
- Author
- DonnaLadd
- Date
- 2004-01-22T17:39:49-06:00
- ID
- 136988
- Comment
That's supposed to be controversial? Have they seen the political ads that aired down here in the last elections? Damn that liberal media...
- Author
- kate
- Date
- 2004-01-22T17:53:12-06:00
- ID
- 136989
- Comment
Yeah, or how about those Willie Horton ads, or those Republican anti-Max Clelland ads in Georgia (with the war hero morphing into Osama bin Laden's face)? Those weren't controversial, nosirree Bob. I actually think the ad is understated, tasteful ... and very powerful. They're showing, rather than telling. A-plus. The efforts to snuff out dissent in the country right now are truly breathtaking.
- Author
- DonnaLadd
- Date
- 2004-01-22T18:16:00-06:00
- ID
- 136990
- Comment
"The efforts to snuff out dissent in the country right now are truly breathtaking. - Donna" With all due respect, Donna, I have to disagree. Are you saying that CBS can't pick and choose what they want to air? Should they be forced to put on their stations a commercial they don't like - for whatever reason they decide is appropriate? Sounds like a freedom of speech issue to me...
- Author
- Fielding
- Date
- 2004-01-23T12:08:11-06:00
- ID
- 136991
- Comment
Fielding, the airwaves are publicly owned. Why should MoveOn be denied access to those airwaves? Especially when CBS will be airing other political material during the show? Have you looked at the ad? For CBS to say its 'too controversial' is just ludicrous. And, I have to ask, if the MoveOn ad were being aired, and the White House ad were not, would you still take the same stance?
- Author
- kate
- Date
- 2004-01-23T12:59:15-06:00
- ID
- 136992
- Comment
Are you saying that CBS can't pick and choose what they want to air? Should they be forced to put on their stations a commercial they don't like - for whatever reason they decide is appropriate? Sounds like a freedom of speech issue to me... Fielding, of course I'm not saying CBS *has* to air the ad. You're obscuring the issue. No institution not receiving government funds has to air speech or a particular ad -- whether the David Horowitz reparations ads that he said was a free speech issue at Brown University, or the incredibly distasteful (and unfactual) Max Clelland and Willie Horton ads -- but they do all the time. The question here is not a First Amendment issue; it is an issue of what powerful interests the mainstream media bow to. It is an issue of what information actually gets through. It is an issue of why there is a faulty perception that mainstream media outets are "liberal" when they're not. It is, indeed, a clear-cut issue of a corporate media outlet squelching dissent by the choices it makes. That doesn't mean people have a constitutional claim, but it does mean that the people should let CBS know that we do not appreciate such an attempt to quiet voices that the prevailing political machine does not want heard. And, as Kate says, when you view the ad, it's very clear that it's not about taste or inappropriateness (whatever the hell that means); it's about a subtle-yet-powerful message that a major network is not going to allow through. It's another sign of what corporate media has become, and how ridiculous it is to try to argue that CBS is a bastion of so-called liberalism (that L-word again), as many right-wing zealots try to do, in order to try to shift the center far to the right and demonize anyone not clinging tightly to their far-right corner. Fortunately, though, despite such attempts to squelch dissent (and thus Americanism), or perhaps because of it, the effort is not working. Dissent and diverse thought is building by the day in the country, thanks in part to efforts to squelch it. So I'm optimistic.
- Author
- DonnaLadd
- Date
- 2004-01-23T13:13:01-06:00
- ID
- 136993
- Comment
I say MoveOn use the high dollars they'd spend advertising during the Super Bowl to pay multiple broadcasters for time during their peak ratings (not necessarily during the Bowl). There's more than one way to skin the proverbial cat.
- Author
- kaust
- Date
- 2004-01-23T13:18:16-06:00
- ID
- 136994
- Comment
you're right - I was being a little disengenuous - and I have seen the issue ad in question - it's pretty good - but I disagree that this is a "clear-cut issue of a corporate media outlet squelching dissent by the choices it makes." as you state above if you or moveon don't like CBS's actions, I would respectfully suggest one appropriate action would be a boycott - a time honored and proven method for influencing tv networks - additionally, Knol is right about skinning a cat - find another time to air the ad - in point of fact, the money moveon has would probably go further at these other times... as for the accusation of liberal bias in some parts of the media, I would respectfully disagree - there are a number of web sites that plainly show such bias - Iwould point out one recent example - "Silence of the blogs Why did the New York Times ignore Baghdad blogger announcements and accounts of a big pro-democracy demonstration? By Wagner James Au Jan. 23, 2004 | Zeyad, the "gamer of Baghdad" profiled earlier this week in Salon, is famous in the international gaming community for his reports on gamer culture in Iraq. But he was also recently responsible for a furious stir online regarding the way news from Iraq is covered by the Western media. On Dec. 10, 2003, pro-democracy, anti-terrorist demonstrators peacefully flooded the streets of Baghdad. A coalition of Iraqis of many political parties and religious affiliations, tribes and ethnicities, young and old (including many students) demanded an end to attacks on civilians and coverage of those attacks by Arab media which depicted the Baathist and foreign jihadi culprits as members of some kind of just "resistance." Even the Al Jazeera network estimated them at over 10,000 strong." read it all at: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/01/23/baghdad_gamer_two/index_np.html
- Author
- Fielding
- Date
- 2004-01-24T11:30:19-06:00
- ID
- 136995
- Comment
One of my posts from another board is sufficient here. As some of you remember, I threw a fit at the "gays deserve to get AIDS" (or something to that effect) line in the "The Reagans" - thinking it was pure gratuitous slander (but let's not bicker about that again). CBS refused to air the show because of that line, the way I read the article. But in THIS case, I think I WILL complain about CBS refusing to air a certain ad during the Super Bowl. The ad, by the liberal group moveon.org the management says was too controversial. Not that I agree with everything moveon says, but my opinion is beside the point. To me, the point is whether it is needlessly inflammatory. The commercial's link is http://www.moveon.org/cbs/ad/ Can someone tell me just what is so controversial about this ad???
- Author
- Philip
- Date
- 2004-01-24T11:54:55-06:00
- ID
- 136996
- Comment
Fielding, there's a big difference between web sites showing a stance, extreme or otherwise, and a major network refusing to run a political advertisement. Most web sites, even fabulous ones like the JFP, don't have the broad reach that CBS does. Part of what I'm responding to here is the endless yammering by some (not all) conservative leaders about the awful "liberal media" (usually coupled with "liberal elite"). Books like: Weapons of Mass Distortion : The Coming Meltdown of the Liberal Media How to Identify, Expose and Correct Liberal Media Bias Give Me a Break : How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right Bias : A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News Do you really think that this is a good decision on the part of CBS, and do you really think that politics has no decision in it? If Clinton were in the White House, would the discussion be going the same way? As for me boycotting CBS, that's pretty much happened on its own, thanks to lousy programming. My TV watching is pretty much confined to The Daily Show, and a few episodes of Stargate and Queer Eye every now and then.
- Author
- kate
- Date
- 2004-01-24T12:15:49-06:00
- ID
- 136997
- Comment
well, Kate - let me respond to a couple of your queries: a: Kate states "there's a big difference between web sites showing a stance, extreme or otherwise, and a major network refusing to run a political advertisement. " Indeed there is, but the lack of coverage of a major pro-democracy demonstration in Baghdad by ANY network or by just about any newspaper seems an indication of bias, especially when coupled with the coverage of lots of smaller, less well attended demonstrations DO get coverage - as long as they fit the preconceptions of the reporters. (and yes, JFP is a lovely blog/website) andI would point out that the story was about the New York Times not covering the story - and their circulation is as widespread (or mighty close to it) as CBS or any other major network b. Kate "Part of what I'm responding to here is the endless yammering by some (not all) conservative leaders about the awful "liberal media" (usually coupled with "liberal elite")." ok fair enough - what do you call books like: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right by Al Franken; 'Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative' by David Brock; 'Stupid White Men ...and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation!' by Michael Moore; and, 'Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth' by Joe Conanson. each of these authors have a bias just as deep as any who wrote the books you cited... c. Kate says: "Do you really think that this is a good decision on the part of CBS, and do you really think that politics has no decision in it? If Clinton were in the White House, would the discussion be going the same way?" Whether I think it was a good or correct decision for CBS is not important (for the record, I do not) - it was theirs to make - as they are the ones in charge of their network - and I don't know if politics was involved - I would guess it was at some level, which leads me to believe that CBS would do the exact same thing if Gore (a better analogy here) were President and an ad was developed by say, the American Spectator, that pointed out what they believed were his faults I don't watch much CBS either, my wife and I end up watching ER & West Wing (are those on CBS?) and all the Law and Orders in their many variations... that being said, an organized boycott of all the products that DID make the cut for play at SuperBowl might be appropriate lastly, this moveon ad is strictly political in nature, and an ad by the Office of Drug Control policy, though techniocally sponsored by the WH, is just not the same thing
- Author
- Fielding
- Date
- 2004-01-24T18:18:50-06:00
- ID
- 136998
- Comment
ok fair enough - what do you call books like: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right by Al Franken; Responses. ;-) And rather overdue, considering how long the "liberal media" scare has been out there. I'll chime in more on this one, Fielding, after this damned Best of Jackson issue goes to bed.
- Author
- DonnaLadd
- Date
- 2004-01-24T18:59:34-06:00
- ID
- 136999
- Comment
Best of Jtown? cool - is Scrooges mentioned? they were pretty good when I worked there...
- Author
- Fielding
- Date
- 2004-01-24T22:01:36-06:00
- ID
- 137000
- Comment
I wrote my local CBS affiliate about the moveon.org ad, telling them that while I donít agree with a lot of what moveon.org claims, the networks decision not to air the ìBush in 30 Secondsî made them ìseriously derelictî (my words) in their duty to society to free speech. An assistant manager (I presume) of the station wrote me back. For your benefit, I summarize the reply (I judge the e-mail private correspondence, and so will not reproduce it in whole) and leave it to you to judge the rationale in this e-mail. ìThe Network has a longstanding policy prohibiting the sale of advertising time for the advocacy of viewpoints on controversial issues of public importanceî. They went on to say that, therefore, they do not air ads advocating positions made by advocacy groups. Political candidates and ìSay No To Drugsî commercials are exempt from this prohibition. The former is exempt in order to carry out specific federal laws about candidate campaigns authorized by the candidates themselves. Advocacy groups such as MoveOn.org do not fall under this legal obligation. Anti-drug and similar such ads are aired because the CBS management feels there is such an overwhelming consensus in our society about the need to combat illegal substance abuse that the network feels airing such ads does not fall under the probation of airing ads by advocacy groups. Political issues like gun control, abortion, and school prayer, and (in this case) MoveOnís ad about the federal deficit, while passionately felt, do not rise to the level of consensus, and hence are not aired by CBS. CBS feels such issues are best addressed through the News Department, where they can receive balanced and objective treatment.
- Author
- Philip
- Date
- 2004-01-26T20:19:14-06:00
- ID
- 137001
- Comment
[Statement from Moveon.org] One-minute Boycott; banned ad to air on CNN all day Sunday: Leaders of the MoveOn.org Voter Fund are urging urging the public to support a one-minute boycott of CBS during halftime at SundayÇs Super Bowl game to protest the networkÇs refusal to air an issue ad that is critical of the Bush Administration 's handling of the federal deficit. At the same time, the MoveOn.org Voter Fund announced it will air the ad on CNN all day Sunday, including during the Super Bowl, and throughout the next week. It also will air on broadcast and cable stations in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Missouri and Nevada, five states that are expected to be central to the coming presidential campaign. The cost of the new ad buy is approximately $1 million. Viewers are asked to leave the CBS Super Bowl broadcast for a minute between 8:15 and 8:45 p.m. Sunday night and go to CNN to see the ad that CBS would not run. For the exact time of the one-minute boycott and ad broadcast, go to the website www. Bushin30Seconds.org
- Author
- DonnaLadd
- Date
- 2004-01-31T11:43:32-06:00
- ID
- 137002
- Comment
I see what Eli Pariser is trying to say about female mudwrestlers trying to sell beer, but he definitely could have chosen better criteria to back up his statement. In that email that my local CBS affiliate replied back to me with, they said the network has a policy of not airing controversial ads about political issues (though candidates ads and public service announcements where there is an overwhelming consensus, such as drug abuse, are exempt from the policy). I have to admit this was a good attempt by CBS, though not good enough; which brings in a line where Mr. Pariser could have used to better support his case. Without going into stringent details (unless asked to do so), let me just say that CBS assumes controversial ads ought not be aired if a reasonable person would find either the style or the substance of the ad morally outrageous. While I can support CBS as far as this goes, the management should refine their criteria so that ìmorally outrageousî does not mean ìsimple policy questions that do not generate shocking moral outrageî and ìgratuitous slanderî (which I did consider the line in The Reagans). Ads for or against abortion, assisted suicide, cloning, etc. I could support prohibitions on airing because plenty (but not all) reasonable people think it morally outrageous. However, nothing in the MoveOn ad rises to that level (or ìfalls down to that levelî, whichever you care to call it).
- Author
- Philip
- Date
- 2004-02-01T02:14:58-06:00
More like this story
More stories by this author
- EDITOR'S NOTE: 19 Years of Love, Hope, Miss S, Dr. S and Never, Ever Giving Up
- EDITOR'S NOTE: Systemic Racism Created Jackson’s Violence; More Policing Cannot Stop It
- Rest in Peace, Ronni Mott: Your Journalism Saved Lives. This I Know.
- EDITOR'S NOTE: Rest Well, Gov. Winter. We Will Keep Your Fire Burning.
- EDITOR'S NOTE: Truth and Journalism on the Front Lines of COVID-19
Support our reporting -- Follow the MFP.
