football commercial that never aired

[Dryden]

Originally posted by Butterfingers
Why ruin what the game is about by polluting it with political hogwash...

I don't understand what is wrong with a network airing a political ad, even if it could unfavorably depict the President or be construed as anti-American.

Isn't this the same network that was among those that aired H Ross Perot's 30-minute paid infomercial in 1988?!

It's nice to see CBS strongly supporting their values, meanwhile Nelly, Justin and Janet are doing their MTV sponsored grind, every other commercial is for Cialis, Viagra, or Levitra, and anti-smoking groups can freely air such disgusting dreck like the "Shards-O-Glass Popsicle" commercial, or otherwise release 'shock' commercials showing children drowning as a warning to all of us regarding the dangers of cigarettes, drugs and alcohol.

I didn't like most of the commercials that aired this year, for reasons other than that they were decidedly unfunny and interrupted what turned out to be a very exciting football game.

Whether a person agrees or disagrees with a paid advertiser's anti-Bush spot is irrelevent to the fact that CBS should not disguise their disdain for the first amendment by claiming obtuse network policies which they only enforce when it proves convienient for them.

It's very much like the double-talk we're hearing today, about how CBS execs completely disapprove of the content of the half-time show (what was intentional and what wasn't really isn't relevent) yet the bigwigs don't seem to have any problems with the Grammy promos that depicted Britney Spears in a shear, glittering body suit - which I thought was far more suggestive than the one second flashing that ended halftime - especially considering the Grammy spots aired a good fifteen or twenty times through the course of the game.

After the game, I caught the Bush ad in question on CNN, and - while mildly humorous - I didn't see any problem with it. I don't think too many voters are so shallow as to let a paid ad influence their election day decisions, nor would many people view a commercial depicting children at work as being anything more than a comment about fundemental problems with the American economy and politics in general, not something completely unique to President Bush's policies or agenda.

First, I think the commercial is too 'generic', and is more apropos commentary of the product of the late 70's & 80's - Ford's, Carter's, and Reagan's administrations - as opposed to anything Dubya could construct.

Second, knowing the ad was sponsored by a foreign organization, I thought it reflected that fact and missed it's mark. Did the architects of this ad not realize that most Americans find kids pretending to be adults as cute and funny? Children pretending to do adult tasks is darn funny. See the Staples office supply commercial as an example. It's not like the ad reflected some shocking truth by showing 13 year old kids in a far flung country sewing together Air Jordans.

Political commerical = bad?

Elderly couple beating each other up for Fritos = funny?

Fine. Next time CBS preempts CSI for a State of the Union address, I'm calling the network to complain.

[mirthvader]

Now you are talking about something different. They can't refuse to show pro-democratic commercials because what happens when a democrat wins. They still need to cover all the political bases and not piss anyone off.

I don't think the lack of political commercials was policy. I think politicians thought they could get better value for their millions elsewhere.

The difference here is that they won't take my money or yours if they think the ad is criticizing the government. That is censorship and I don't care whose ad it is. I hate living in a world where only those with money or influence can get their opinions on the airwaves.

The media is the main source of information on what is going on in the country and the world. If the media can't pretend to remain impartial, we are well and truly screwed. It scares me to think of all the people who believe everything they see and read as fact.


Hey, I like to argue. What's wrong with that.

[mirthvader]

I forgot to say I also think negative ads are a waste of time. Tell me what is good about your product or person. Not what is bad about the other guy. It's always easy to find fault.

Even I'm not perfect.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Dryden
Whether a person agrees or disagrees with a paid advertiser's anti-Bush spot is irrelevent to the fact that CBS should not disguise their disdain for the first amendment by claiming obtuse network policies which they only enforce when it proves convienient for them.

[Butterfingers]

Im just irritated that move on is whining like little babies when CBS stated WEEKS before the game that they will not air ANY political ads. That means none from the left none from the right.... NOTHING...

They make it seem as if they are the victims and that CBS refused to air JUST thier ad. They even go as far as to say that CBS aired Pro Bush ads which is an outright LIE.

[bleachit]

CBS can air what commercials they want, when they want. Its their freedom to choose what they show on THEIR network. Its their freedom of speech to pick and choose what gets shown on their network.

and as far as enforcing obtuse network policies... when you get your own network, you can run it however you want to. As long as CBS isnt breaking any laws, they have the right to enforce their obtuse policies however they like.

[Dryden]

Originally posted by shartley

This is not a First Amendment issue.. sorry. Newspapers, Television Stations, Radio Stations, private persons, and general businesses are not bound by the First Amendment when it deals with Freedom Of Speech.

No, this IS a First Amendment issue, because CBS has been delegated a limited amount of broadcast frequency by a government entity, the FCC. You're correct that newpapers (as all print media in general) are not bound by two centuries of case law regarding the first amendment, nor are cable television networks, but broadcast television and radio IS subject to scrutiny if the frequencies given to companies by the FCC are not used equally for the good of the people.

Again, I don't think it's relevent to debate the principles or merits (or lack-of) regarding this specific commercial, but it is significant that CBS abuses their authority to unilaterally decide who can advertise what, and when.

First Amendment law is very specific regarding what national broadcasters can and cannot do, and that they - as custodians of a limited resource - act as proxies to fair and equitable coverage.

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969).

"The Federal Communications Commission has for many years imposed on radio and television broadcasters the requirement that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations, and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage. This is known as the fairness doctrine."

Supreme Court Justice White wrote, "[B]ecause of the scarcity of radio frequencies, the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium. But the people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."

[shartley]

Originally posted by Dryden
[B]
No, this IS a First Amendment issue, because CBS has been delegated a limited amount of broadcast frequency by a government entity, the FCC. You're correct that newpapers (as all print media in general) are not bound by two centuries of case law regarding the first amendment, nor are cable television networks, but broadcast television and radio IS subject to scrutiny if the frequencies given to companies by the FCC are not used equally for the good of the people.

Again, I don't think it's relevent to debate the principles or merits (or lack-of) regarding this specific commercial, but it is significant that CBS abuses their authority to unilaterally decide who can advertise what, and when.

First Amendment law is very specific regarding what national broadcasters can and cannot do, and that they - as custodians of a limited resource - act as proxies to fair and equitable coverage.

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969).

"The Federal Communications Commission has for many years imposed on radio and television broadcasters the requirement that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations, and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage. This is known as the fairness doctrine."

Supreme Court Justice White wrote, "ecause of the scarcity of radio frequencies, the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium. But the people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."

[Dryden]

Originally posted by bleachit
CBS can air what commercials they want, when they want. Its their freedom to choose what they show on THEIR network.

No, you're missing my point. It's YOUR network. It's MY network. It's EVERYONEs network.

Look, it's entirely valid for Comedy Central to dictate what they will and will not air. But that's missing the point. CBS, ABC, and NBC have to play by different rules. They have been given a unique opportunity since the eariest days of radio by the federal government to broadcast content which is in the interest of the public.

Whether or not you watch CBS or an affiliate network on cable, satellite, or your PDA is not an issue to their establishment as a national broadcaster with hundreds of radio channels delegated to them via the FCC.

[Jack_Dubious]

I have to agree that a "our kids are gonna pay for the debt" commercial is a bit cliche and unimaginative.

I mean if you wanna do a political commercial...have one with some balls...

http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/bush-hitler1.mov

[bleachit]

"No, you're missing my point. It's YOUR network. It's MY network. It's EVERYONEs network."

are you paying their bills? didnt think so, it doesnt belong to you or me.

[Dryden]

Originally posted by shartley

That is the precise point! They DO air political commercials!

I misstated in my earlier post RE: Ross Perot's infomercials, it was 1992, not 1988. Anyhow, Perot was alloted time on the national networks to express his opinions, which CBS, NBC, and ABC held for ransom at very high premiums as they had to surrender their most valuable prime time slots.

You are correct, neither you nor I could "walk on" to a set and demand air time, as the national networks do have a right to profitability to remain viable. However, if you or I purchased air time, the national networks could air such content, and might even be forced to by the FCC, as happended to CBS and NBC in 1996 when they would only sell Ross Perot time slots outside of the prime time viewing hours.

[Dryden]

Originally posted by bleachit
are you paying their bills? didnt think so, it doesnt belong to you or me.

Sigh. Yes.

That's why the commercials are there in the first place.

[spantol]

Originally posted by shartley

It is not a ?political advocacy? web site? it is a slander and mud throwing site. And sorry, mud can get tossed in any direction and few would remain clean when all is said and done.

Technically, it would be libel. When it's spoken, it's slander. Realistically, what is so damned offensive on that site? Please, give me an example. I hear more inflammatory things on FNC every night.

Sure, the sites may be pretty one sided, but the purpose for the sites are totally different. One is to support, the other is to HURT. And if you, my friend, can?t tell the difference (or at least acknowledge the difference) it shows why things are as messed up as they are in politics.

Context can be a wonderful thing. I never claimed the intentions of the two sites were at all similar. I intended to point out that both sites have clear agendas--Bush's to support his re-election, and moveon.org's to serve as a populist (though left-leaning) watchdog. Expecting either to act contrary to that agenda is foolish.

Kudos on the closing ad hominem, too. Always has been part of AO's charm.

[spantol]

Wow. Without commenting on the claims made, that's a powerful political commercial. Reminds me of the Goldwater ad, with the girl playing in the field and the mushroom cloud.

Originally posted by Jack_Dubious
I have to agree that a "our kids are gonna pay for the debt" commercial is a bit cliche and unimaginative.

I mean if you wanna do a political commercial...have one with some balls...

http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/bush-hitler1.mov