Check out the link below to see the commercial MoveOn.org wanted to air during the Superbowl. CBS rejected it as "too controversial" .
http://www.moveon.org/cbs/ad/
<EDIT>
Removed my editorial opinion and inflammatory remarks
</EDIT>
Printable View
Check out the link below to see the commercial MoveOn.org wanted to air during the Superbowl. CBS rejected it as "too controversial" .
http://www.moveon.org/cbs/ad/
<EDIT>
Removed my editorial opinion and inflammatory remarks
</EDIT>
But it's paid advertising. That would mean that CBS has the right to refuse what they want. Wouldn't it?
Honestly- I don't know. Perhaps another AO member can shed more light on that. I am sure they have some leeway in what they choose to air, but being a network I think they also have an obligation to at least give the impression of representing both sides of an issue. Maybe not. In the end, if their other sponsors pull out or enough people boycott the Superbowl because of their censorship it will change their outlook. The bottom line is what counts and if this decision affects their bottom line they will change it.
Individuals complaining or threatening not to watch will have little to no effect. I plan to also contact the other major sponsors. If THEY feel like viewers are going to boycott or take issue with the censorship themselves they will pull their ads and that will be much more likely to get CBS to cave.
In the end, their censorship will probably get this ad way more publicity and make it way more controversial than it ever would have been had they simply aired it. They probably did the anti-Bush campaign a favor by making a "martyr" of the ad.
You would think that CBS would have the right to pick and choose what they air, but people should see both sides of an issue. Most, though, have already formed an opinion of Bush and a TV ad is not likely to change it. People who disagree with the presidents politics will find plenty of anti-Bush sites and shows and whatnot if they look, and vice versa. If you're hoping to sway those who don't have a pre-set opinion, there are plenty of other places on TV for them to get the necessary information (propaganda :D ).
However, if it turns out that they don't have that right, it would explain the CNN commercials I've seen on Fox News!
If people are to see both sides of the issue, then the advertising mudslinging that goes on, especially in US Political ads, should be banned as they are not accurate. CBS and other TV stations are merely the medium to transmit the paid message. The same could be said for PETA, who were also denied the right to televise during the SuperBowl. What if the Taliban wanted to put up an ad saying how America invaded Iraq? What would you think then? Or if the KKK decided to put up an ad calling for all White Americans to join in the Aryan fight and to kill all the "niggers" they see? Would you object if CBS pulled that ad? If advertising is supposed to be "unbiased" and balanced then Coke and Pepsi should do ads together as should Burger King and MacDonalds.
These aren't news reports -- where it's supposed to be unbiased. This is an advertisement. Advertising is one-side.
Very good points MsMittens. You are correct that I would not approve of a KKK ad or object to it being pulled. I actually wouldn't mind seeing the Taliban ad though- just to hear the other side of that story :)
I think that it walks a fine line though when it comes to political advertising. Sadly, most Americans are an instant-gratification, 30-second attention span sort of people. He with the most television ads wins. Half of the registered voters don't vote. The half that does vote either votes party line or for the one with the most advertising without any real understanding of the issues, how the candidate proposes to address the issues or what the candidates track record is on those issues or on actually following through with what they say. It leaves a very small percentage of informed voters- certainly not enough to sway an election.
The Bush administration actively helped to move a bill through that will enable CBS and Fox to grow larger. To turn around and "ban" anti-Bush ads because they are "too controversial" looks an awful lot like "you scratched our back now we'll scratch yours".
Whether or not Coke and Pepsi or Burger King and McDonald's get equal time doesn't affect the country. Having the incumbent regime control the media does.
Like I said though- I think they are just making a martyr. Word will spread. The ad on the web will get viewed a thousand times more than the 30 second Superbowl spot would have. MoveOn.org can take their $2.3 million it would have cost to run the commercial and instead run it on other channels during primetime 10 or 15 times instead of blowing the whole wad on one 30-second commercial. They are simply helping to highlight just how much the media is in collusion with the Bush administration and how they can't be trusted to represent an unbiased opinion of the election, nevermind the day to day workings of government. Hopefully more and more people will pick up on that.
Really? Perhaps a better comparison would have been Burger King versus Jenny Craig. It's interesting that ads that convince people they are "better" when drinking a product and has resulted in society being obese don't offend you. You are specific about the anti-Bush ad from what I can tell and don't seem to object to the pulling of the PETA ad. If it was truly a question of Freedom of Speech you would defend ALL potentially offensive and one-sided ads rather than a select few.Quote:
Whether or not Coke and Pepsi or Burger King and McDonald's get equal time doesn't affect the country.
In addition, politically speaking (and from some years in political campaigns), it is, IMHO, stupid to put a political ad up when the viewers, largely male, want to see the T&A show (**** and Ass), the Play of the Day and yell at the "bleeping bleeping blooping bleeping" blind ref for missing the obvious "bleeping bleeping" foul.
What stops them from running these ads on the local stations rather than through the main channel? What about during the sports highlight reels in the evening news when you get more than the Joe Schmoe?
I'm sorry but I have a hard time buying that this is a Free Speech issue. Certainly I dislike Bush and a lot of what he did but that doesn't make it right to cry wolf when nothing is there.
That isn't free speech. That's consumerism.Quote:
MoveOn.org can take their $2.3 million it would have cost to run the commercial and instead run it on other channels during primetime 10 or 15 times instead of blowing the whole wad on one 30-second commercial.
Quote:
Noam Chomski
As long as people are marginalized and distracted [they] have no way to organize or articulate their sentiments, or even know that others have these sentiments. People assume that they are the only people with a crazy idea in their heads. They never hear it from anywhere else. Nobody's supposed to think that. ... Since there's no way to get together with other people who share or reinforce that view and help you articulate it, you feel like an oddity, an oddball. So you just stay on the side and you don't pay any attention to what's going on. You look at something else, like the Superbowl.
FWIW I do object to them denying the PETA ad as well.
I think that my idea of bringing pressure on the other sponsors would probably fail because its sort of the opposite that is probably already occurring. In a nutshell, CBS may or may not care about the anti-Bush or PETA ad per se, but their other paying sponsors probably do and so to avoid offending the companies spending $50 million to advertise during the Superbowl they choose to reject the ones spending $2.3 million.
I agree completely that the Superbowl is not the best forum for the ad and that MoveOn.org will probably get more bang for the buck spending their $2.3 million to run the ad on multiple channels / multiple nights for broader viewership. Advertising during the Superbowl has a sort of testosterone-inducing affect that sways the ability to judge whether or not its "good" marketing. Its so "elite" that companies just like to say that they did it.
Perhaps not a "free speech" issue in the Constitutional sense. But, I resent the ability of the current administration to "wag the dog". In an environment where so many people make up their minds based on what they see on TV or read in the newspaper it gives an unfair advantage to the incumbent party- Republican, Democrat or otherwise (as if that will happen in my lifetime). Regardless of the events occurring throughout the world the incumbent party can re-write headlines and redirect focus with a simple photo op or press conference.
I am sure this has all gone on to some degree and in various ways from the dawn of politics. All that has changed are the methods and mediums. In the end, I am fairly confident that the country will endure and that more of the same will go on in future elections regardless of the incumbent party. That doesn't make it right or any less frustrating though.
Let me get this in perspective. You want to force a private company to air a political motivated add? And you say the opposite is a violation of free speech? That they don't have the right to decide on their own what to air? And you supported the notion that the add becomes illegal if the super bowl happened to be 6 months prior to an election. That a super bowl, an entertainment medium should become the showcase for highly hyped highly biased political ads that border on comical? And you are going to contact major corporations and form a boycott because a web site basically run by the Clintons can't pay millions of dollars to air a commercial the NFL producers DO NOT want and force your will upon the masses as a minority voice. That you Tony, advocate propaganda on a large scale that scares school children all across the nation into thinking their futures are dark because Bush is in office. I thought TAS was bad but now here in the states we have groups that want to force media upon us but only when it fits their own personal agenda, anyone else is part of the syndicate burned into your brain.
Its the friggin super bowl, it's football chill out you have all summer to bash Bushy, well until close to the election, because the people who think like you made free speech illegal and applauded it, while never contemplating the counterpoint that not everyone who wants a voice is part of a multinational syndicate, perhaps they could be members of moveon.org or AO who pool money together. Too bad, their voice is now silent for a period of time every four years.
Perhaps I could air a commercial of liberals in California talking, who have nice houses in the suburbs and don't want a light rail system of mass transportation because it will bring in the homeless from the cities, while they publicly cry about how republicans aren’t doing enough for the poor people and speak about evil of cars and the devilish S U V. :) Then when CBS chooses not to air it, I'll sue them and overstep their rights with my own and walk on them and then sue McDonalds because my 3 a day Big Mac habit made me fat and I don’t look good in the commercial, and it’s their fault for oppressing me and forcing me to eat their food through mind controlling commercials. Who's with me on boycotting the super bowl because McDonalds most likely will air a commercial that entices us? Their syndicate is ruining America and probably has ties to Bush.
Where does moveon.org get million upon million to air a commercial? Are they part of the corporate syndicate coming at our flanks to socialize the masses into a government dependent socialized hypnotized culture????? Where media is nothing but doom and gloom and no optimism exists anywhere?
What sparks this great desire to air a political commercial during a national entertainment event and why the great dissention when the company says it would prefer other ads that are probably waiting in line?
Two things to say:
I agree with you here. Although I am kinda pissed that they will probably have stupid anti-drug or pro-bush commercials I agree it is their right to show what the hell they want on their station.Quote:
Originally posted here by RoadClosed
[B]Let me get this in perspective. You want to force a private company to air a political motivated add? And you say the opposite is a violation of free speech? That they don't have the right to decide on their own what to air? And you supported the notion that the add becomes illegal if the super bowl happened to be 6 months prior to an election. That a super bowl, an entertainment medium should become the showcase for highly hyped highly biased political ads that border on comical?
Its called donations buddy. Have you seen how the Howard Dean campaign gets money for their campaign? That is how they get money. No secret consipiracy. ;) (Although it might be a little more fun if there was... ;) )Quote:
Where does moveon.org get million upon million to air a commercial? Are they part of the corporate syndicate coming at our flanks to socialize the masses into a government dependent socialized hypnotized culture????? Where media is nothing but doom and gloom and no optimism exists anywhere?
The ads for the Superbowl will be:Quote:
Although I am kinda pissed that they will probably have stupid anti-drug or pro-bush commercials I agree it is their right to show what the hell they want on their station.
American Legacy Foundation Anti-smoking campaign
Anheuser-Busch
America Online
Bayer and GlaxoSmithKline
DaimlerChrysler
FedEx
Frito-Lay
General Motors
H&R Block
Monster WorldWide
NFL
Pepsi-Cola
Philip Morris anti-smoking campaign
Procter & Gamble
Sony Pictures
Touchstone Pictures
Visa
Warner Bros.
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy
<off topic>There is a whole site dedicated to Super Bowl commercials... ;)
http://www.superbowl-ads.com/</off topic>
I was quite pissed at the "drugs fund terrorism" commercial by the DEA (or was it the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy) last year. What about oil? That funds terrorism...
Wasnt Apple supposed to be doing another 1984 commercial to celebrate 20 years of the Mac?
If this is a question of free-speech, then Phillip Morris should be able to advertise their cigarettes and how cool they make you look not once but twice. And the Columbian drugs lords should be able to market cocaine or Canadian pot growers should be able to advertise the weed found in Barrie. :DQuote:
American Legacy Foundation Anti-smoking campaign
Philip Morris anti-smoking campaign
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy
Anyways, this issue has been beaten to death. Let the grand consumerism called Football begin and get it over with. It's gonna be an annoying year of political ads, olympic cheering ads and other crap.
Then again, I might be a tad cynical. :)
I know :) I was playing to all the conspiracy stuff floating around. Just because some people get together, doesn't mean they are part of a huge conglomerate of sydicated corporations. They are just people who have an opinion and want to contribute to a candidates success or failure. My point is if someone like moveon.org tried to run an add during the back out period it would be illegal becasue the collected pool of money would be over the limit. I think that is wrong but everyone else seem to think it was ok.Quote:
Its called donations buddy. Have you seen how the Howard Dean campaign gets money for their campaign?
/edit after MSMs post.
Those Phillip Morris adds are no doubt the result of the lawsuit they lost, were it was their fault that people chained smoked everyday. Part of the settlement was anti-smoking campaigns sponsored and constucted by them. They are FORCED to do it by our own government.
I always find this stuff interesting because in some cases, the government is why people started smoking. My grandpa started smoking in the Marines because they gave you 15 minute breaks (from running and everything else) if you smoked.Quote:
Originally posted here by RoadClosed
/edit after MSMs post.
Those Phillip Morris adds are no doubt the result of the lawsuit they lost, were it was their fault that people chained smoked everyday. Part of the settlement was anti-smoking campaigns sponsored and constucted by them. They are FORCED to do it by our own government.
Like I said, you'd think a company would have the right to decide what they want to air and what they don't. It's their station after all. However, it seems like whenever they exercise said right, everyone jumps all over them.Quote:
You want to force a private company to air a political motivated add?
When I was in the Air Force my non-smoking buddies and I started taking hourly non-smoking breaks too. Its always bothered me that smokers are somehow entitled to this 15 minutes per hour- wasting away 1/4 of the day committing slow suicide, but that non-smokers are often looked at as slackers if they take the same 15 minutes every hour.Quote:
My grandpa started smoking in the Marines because they gave you 15 minute breaks (from running and everything else) if you smoked.
The Phillip Morris "non-smoking" ads are a result of them "losing" the lawsuit. Its supposed to be part of their reparations. In my mind they got off easy and their non-smoking ads do as much to promote smoking as it does not smoking. Its a sort of backdoor way for them to get their name and likeness on TV even though tobacco companies are forbidden from advertising on TV.
For non-smoking, I like the Truth.com ads. I think Phillip Morris should just have to fund and bankroll Truth.com rather than being allowed to come up with their own ads.
I dunno...... The way a lot of you kids are talking I'm beginning to wonder why you are even bothering with your Democratic primaries....... It's quite clear from what you say that there won't be an election in November. Bush is simply soooooo powerful, with his fingers in every pie that by the time November comes around he will have anointed himself Emperor in a Napoleonic rite and done away with elections and the Constitution itself in favor of a monarchy where he will probably be succeded by Jeb.
You people are nuckin' futz......... Your hatred of the man has blinded you to common sense and reason. Bush is no more, (and no less), powerful than Clinton is/was. While Bush's power may be more closely rooted in commerce/industry, Clinton's was based in lawyers and the legislators that run the country. It's a toss up which group weilds more power - big business can take down an average lawyer but a good lawyer can take down a big business. But I don't recall you all whining about how Clinton was too powerful and was doing things he shouldn't even there there was/is far more evidence pointing to Clinton's little faux pas', (right down to stealing items from the White house on his departure), than there ever has been against Bush. Yet Bush is the multi-headed Gorgon that must be removed before we are all imperiled.......
Kids....... Your reality checks are bouncing..... like superballs..... Get a grip!
FWIW - I hated Clinton too and couldn't wait to get a Republican back in the Whitehouse. As it turns out, I hate Clinton's replacement as much or more even though I voted for him.
<EDIT>
The bottom line is that I am anti-government. The Republican creed of smaller federal government and pushing government down to the lowest possible level to let the people govern themselves makes sense to me.
Unfortunately, the current Republican party is more focused on their Christian agenda and growing government bigger.
</EDIT>
hmmm.... http://www.truth.com/intro.cfm Came up as a hardware site. (Truth Hardware)Quote:
Originally posted here by tonybradley
For non-smoking, I like the Truth.com ads. I think Phillip Morris should just have to fund and bankroll Truth.com rather than being allowed to come up with their own ads.
Edit: Its http://www.thetruth.com All Praise the mighty god of google... :D
Hooly Sheet Tony, you are RIGHT!
But you see the alternative is Dean and man I am not seeing eye to eye with that guy at all. You can side with that line of thinking about Bush but he's not the death eater squad set out to rule the planet and force us all into slavery.Quote:
Unfortunately, the current Republican party is more focused on their Christian agenda and growing government bigger.
I WISH it was between him and Dean. I guess we'll see how New Hampshire plays out. Right now I am wanting Dean or Edwards- but it looks like Kerry has the superior corporate backing and is gaining percentage points ever day.
Not sure how I will choose in the end if Kerry gets the nomination- maybe just pack up and move to Micronesia or something.
I think that Dean with Clark as a Vice Presidential running mate might make a good ticket.
That would be Bush/Carl Rove's dream opponent. Dean would win the hardcore Democrat support (~ 20-30 %), but would fail to win the majority of independent voters (~40-60%), which would mean so long as Bush doesn't piss off/alienate his core supporters (~20-30%) such that they don't vote, then he picks up a majority of the independent vote. Anger and attacks and whining will only carry a candidate so far, it certainly won't carry him to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave...Quote:
I think that Dean with Clark as a Vice Presidential running mate might make a good ticket.
That little tirade he threw in Iowa, unless something drastically changes in his favor soon, IMHO has doomed his candidacy...Kinda like Ross Perot after all his conspiracy theories and dropping in/out of the Presidential races...
And before you think otherwise, I do think the Democrats have a good chance of winning in the elections this year, but they will have to do it through a positive campaign of ideas that contrasts their visions with that of Bush (who clearly doesn't have much of one, and certainly not one of his own). A very good example of this is what happened in Iowa...what happened to Dean and Gephardt? They were the two most negative of the lot...they plunged in the polls and finished 3rd and 4th...after being 1 and 2...if the Dem's go/stay negative, they will lose...and badly.
/nebulus
Good Points by both of you, hey Tony micronesia would be fun. They don't have much of a democracy but I know the ropes and good dive spots. I am with you.