No Partisan Ads

[Churchmouse]

ABC has refused to run an ad opposing President Obamas healthcare plan. The reason. They don't run ads of a partisan nature.

Isn't this the same ABC that ran a three hour block in June by the administration pushing the plan.

It must be true. ABC stands for All Barack Channel

(NBC initially turned down the ad also, but is now reconsidering).

[Palerider]

If you look around I think ABC has a kool aid stand on every corner.....:eek:

[Just_A_Guy]

Is ABC still owned by Disney?

[Guest]

Okay, I'm a foreigner here... very honest question...

1.) If the President promotes it - is that still partisan? Once elected President, doesn't he then become America? How else is he gonna be able to use TV media to reach American people?

2.) Are news channels supposed to be un-biased? So, if an ad is considered partisan, isn't it right for them to refuse it?

Okay, with those questions asked, I don't think opposition to HR 3200 is necessarily partisan... but then, I haven't seen the ad.

[bytebear]

Okay, I'm a foreigner here... very honest question...

1.) If the President promotes it - is that still partisan? Once elected President, doesn't he then become America? How else is he gonna be able to use TV media to reach American people?

2.) Are news channels supposed to be un-biased? So, if an ad is considered partisan, isn't it right for them to refuse it?

Okay, with those questions asked, I don't think opposition to HR 3200 is necessarily partisan... but then, I haven't seen the ad.

I would recommend reading two books by Bernard Goldburg.

Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News

A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media

In these books you will discover how bias the media really is. But to answer your questions, yes news media is supposed to be unbiased, and in this case, ABC has clearly chosen sides by airing specials promoting the plan, and refusing to air rebuttals.

[Elphaba]

As always, perspective is needed to demonstrate things are not always as black and white as you assume. For example, the MSM always bends to the left. . . always--except when it doesn't.

Utah TV Station Refuses to Air Anti-War Ad Days Before Bush Visit

August 21,2005

SALT LAKE CITY: A Utah television statement is reusing to air an anti-war ad featuring Cindy Sheehan, whose son’s death in Iraq prompted a vigil outside President Bush’s Texas ranch.

The ad began airing on other stations Saturday, two days before President Bush was scheduled to speak in Salt Lake City to the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

However, a national sales representative for KTVX, a local ABC affiliate, rejected the ad in an e-mail to media buyers, writing that it was an “inappropriate commercial advertisement for Salt Lake City.”

Anti-Bush ads refused as “too inflammatory”

September 24, 2007

The national political organization "World Can’t Wait--Drive Out the Bush Regime” said Friday that they had been refused premium back page space in the New York City daily newspaper Metro NY, based on the content of their ads.

. . . .

The reason given by the publisher was that the content was “too inflammatory” for them to publish on the back page.

Michigan Messenger ABC refuses to run ad questioning energy company ad expenditures

10/9/08

After the latest presidential debate, yet another ad from oil company Chevron appeared on ABC. At the same time the network refused to run an ad that blames large advertising campaigns by Big Oil and coal as a reason for the gridlock clean energy in Washington.

The ad titled “Repower America” was produced by Al Gore’s nonprofit organization “We Can Solve It.”

Local Fox Station Bans Anti-Bush Ad

September 06, 2005

Fox 5 New York, has refused to run an ad for a democratic candidate for Manhattan borough president: Brian Ellner. Ellner is one of nine candidates running or that position and is not expected to win the primary

. . . .

"In a field of nine democrats, I guess you have to try and stand out. So Brian’s ad starts out bashing the president and ends with Ellner wrapping his arms around his partner. According to Ellner, Fox refused the ad because it was “disrespectful to the office of the president. . . .

NBC Rejects Ads for Dixie Chicks Documentary : NPR

The Dixie Chicks are the subject of a new political debate. NBC and the CW won’t run ads for Shut Up and Sing, a new documentary about the group. The Dixie Dhichs faced a radio boycott in 2003 after lead singer Natalie Maines expressed disfavor for President Bush.

CBS Censorship At Super Bowl? Network Bars Progressive MoveOn.org Ads.

CBS refused to sell ad time to MoveOn and the People for the Ethical treatment of Animals during Super Bowl because the network claimed it did not accept advocacy advertising. Democracy Now!

CNN.com - RNC*tells TV stations not to run anti-Bush ads - Mar 7, 2004

March 7, 2004

WASHINGTON (CNN) The Republican National Committee is warning television stations across the country not to run ads from the MoveOn.org Voter Fund that criticize President Bush, charging that the left-leaning political group is paying them with money raised in violation of the new campaign-finance law.

In my opinion, there is only one credible and reliable news source. It's the one that confirms everything you believe is true, regardless of the facts.

Elphaba

Edited August 28, 2009 by Elphaba

[Moksha]

Shouldn't the money saved from the ads be used to refurbish the polo fields?

[Elphaba]

I think you ask some very good questions.

1. If the President promotes it - is that still partisan?

Yes, it is, because s/he was elected by the people as a member of one party, and they expect him to govern, when reasonable, under the party that elected him. Therefore, the presidency is inherently partisan.

Once elected President, doesn't he then become America?

He becomes the ultimate representative of America, but he doesn't become America. (I'm not sure what you mean by that sentence, and perhaps I'm reading it wrong.)

How else is he gonna be able to use TV media to reach American people?

President Obama ran a practically flawless campaign using the internet, and I know he's attempting to do the same for healthcare reform.

But you're right, television is an effective means of getting his healthcare reform message out there, along with all other methods of communication, which have grown exponentially as we've entered the immediate information age.

Sometimes I think that can be a detriment, in that when s/he make a mistake, the whole world knows about it to its tiniest detail. Before the explosion of instant news, it would have been sluffed off as a faux pas, and forgotten. I think the Gates situation is a perfect example.

2.) Are news channels supposed to be un-biased?

No, they're not. That is not to say they can't choose to be unbiased as possible--they can. But that choice is up to the individual channels, as is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

So, if an ad is considered partisan, isn't it right for them to refuse it?

Again, that's up to the channel(s). It doesn't have to accept any type of programming, including commercials, it doesn't want; conversely, it has the right to air any programming, including ads, it wishes to.

This wasn't the case until fairly recently. There was once a practice called the Fairness Doctrine that made it illegal to not give both sides of an issue access to the media to present their respective positions. From Wiki:

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

However, during the Reagan administration, the Fariness Doctrine was repealed under the grounds that it violated the media's First Amendment rights.

I agree with that decision. No one, including the media, should be forced to promote a policy s/he disagrees with. It's true the result is a bias, but it's both from the right and the left, though each side rarely admits that.

Okay, with those questions asked, I don't think opposition to HR 3200 is necessarily partisan... but then, I haven't seen the ad.

I think the healthcare reform issue is, now, all about partisanship, and is reflected in the ads. So far, practically to a person, our Congressional representatives adamantly support their respective party's position. Given there are some very significant disagreements, I don't foresee any true compromise forthcoming. But that's just my observation. I hope I'm wrong.

Elphaba

Edited August 29, 2009 by Elphaba

[bytor2112]

In my opinion, there is only one credible and reliable news source. It's the one that confirms everything you believe is true, regardless of the facts.

Truer words may never have been spoken!!