Censorship in 30 Seconds - DPChallenge Forums

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/31/2004 12:09:20 PM · #1

Please consider joining the One-minute Boycott of CBS.

I'd CBS's refusual to air a (fully-paid) ad discussing the issues of the day to be in violation of their FCC license, which obligates them to use the public airways (at least a tiny bit) for the public good.

That they will air ads from the RIAA and alcohol-promoters but not this is censorship of the worst kind -- the press completely abdicating its public responsibilities in favor of private political and financial gain.

Please consider writing to or calling your local affiliate and object to their attempt to undermine the First Amendment and manipilate the political process.

Others on record as objecting to CBS's censorship include:
26 US Representatives (Letter from House Memebers)
National Organization for Women
Various newspaper editorials, including Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, and many other papers
ACLU

====
Here's the L.A. Times' Op-Ed piece, which ran in today's (Jan. 30) paper:

One Thing That Won't Be Tackled on Sunday: Issues
By Eli Pariser
Campaigns Director, MoveOn.org Voter Fund
//www.moveon.org/r?484

When the Super Bowl is beamed into living rooms around the world Sunday, you can expect to see TV spots hyping cars, beer, razor blades, three different erectile dysfunction cures, toilet paper and snack foods.

The ads will be slick and clever, lavishly produced, brilliant in their marketing. Some, no doubt, will be sexually suggestive or violent. Most will cost $2 million to $3 million to produce and broadcast.

But here's what you won't see: a single ad about the big issues that face our country today.

Outrageous as it may sound, CBS has decided that ads selling erectile dysfunction medicines and toilet paper are appropriate for Americans, but serious discussion should be banned. An ad about our country, our war, our president, the state of our schools or the size of our budget deficit? That, in the eyes of CBS officialdom, would be too controversial.

We know, because we tried. We thought that the Super Bowl, with 130 million viewers, would be a great place to get our message out. So we held a contest on the Internet to select the best ad we could possibly run. The ad we selected â�� from 1,500 submissions â�� shows children cleaning offices, washing dishes and hauling trash. It ends with the question: "Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1-trillion deficit?" (It's viewable at //www.MoveOn.org ).

But even though we were willing to pony up the $1.6 million to pay for it, CBS refused to sell us the time, citing what it says is a 50-year-old policy prohibiting ads that take stands on controversial public policy issues.

CBS claims its policy is designed to keep the Citibanks and Microsofts of the world from buying time to tell Americans how to think. "It is designed to prevent those with means to produce and purchase network advertising from having undue influence on 'controversial issues of public importance,' " the network said this week.

Sounds fair, doesn't it? But what it really means is that if McDonald's buys an ad promoting its tasty Big Mac, no one can run an ad that says Big Macs are full of fat and unhealthful. Pfizer can run a spot saying it's "helping people in need" get medicine, but we can't air an ad saying that Pfizer lobbied to weaken the new Medicare bill to prop up drug prices. Halliburton has slick ads that stress its role supporting the troops in Iraq. But CBS would reject an ad that pointed to Halliburton's profiteering.

The fewer issue ads run, the more time there is for ads with mud-wrestling women selling beer and leggy models peddling fast cars. CBS execs think Americans love mindless consumerism more than anything else and that it's their duty to pander to this.

But with "fairness" doctrines no longer governing the airwaves and the media more concentrated each day, it's getting harder and harder to engage regular people in political discourse. Even the town square has been replaced, in most communities, by private malls, where politics is not encouraged.

Instead of taking every opportunity to promote civic discussion, commercial broadcasters like CBS shrink away. The airwaves are, more than ever, private enterprises. And for that we pay a price: As public political speech becomes more difficult and infrequent, the public becomes less engaged in the policies, processes and laws that govern us.

"Controversy" isn't the real problem. Network front offices love it when one group or another protests sexy babes in bikinis peddling beer brands, or violent video games in which the highest body count wins. That builds buzz.

The CBS policy represents the triumph of corporate self-interest over the public interest. This is the same CBS, after all, that yanked the Ronald Reagan miniseries recently when Republican bigwigs complained. As Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) noted this week, "These are the same executives at CBS who successfully lobbied this Congress to change the FCC rules on TV station ownership to their corporate advantage." CBS simply would rather not risk offending powerful people in Washington who decide such critical regulatory matters.

But try getting that issue into a 30-second spot for Super Bowl audiences.

JC_Homola

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

01/31/2004 12:36:26 PM · #2

THanks for the info.
I subscribe to the MoveOn newsletter.

Yep, I'm a dyed in the wool liberal of the 60's variety... who thinks government should be responsible and the media should report ALL sides of a story, whether I agree with them or not, and not cave into special interest pressure groups just for a buck.

cbeller

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

01/31/2004 01:11:29 PM · #3

Glad they are going to be able to at least air the spot somewhere. It's a great spot and should be aired on CBS. I'll be flipping over.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/31/2004 01:27:25 PM · #4

A couple of newspaper editorials:
//www.berkshireeagle.com/Stories/0,1413,101~6267~1926690,00.html

//www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/entertainment/s_177209.html

Message edited by author 2004-01-31 13:27:44.

jab119

01/31/2004 02:51:43 PM · #5

that just goes to show what takes presidence in the USA. Booze, over paid athletes and sex.

Not real issues that affect our actual lives and enviroment

James

01/31/2004 04:39:26 PM · #6

I really liked listening to all those ads made for that project! Can't wait for the election. And I'm on permanent leave from TV. Haven't owned one for 15 years at least.
But...
You started out with how they want to pay and then moved on to how CBS is violating their license. That, to me, is inconsistant. If they wanted to pay, then it couldn't be considered public interest. If it's public interest, why would they want to pay? I feel as if the argument you propose has been manipulated in such a way as to make CBS bad and MoveOn morally innocent.
Why should CBS be forced to show the ad at a time picked out by a third party who has no vested interest in the network's profitability? Should every group be allowed to force a network to air ads at a time they, the third party, feel would best suit their needs? Should networks be forced to air all ads from all companies or groups? What if it's an ad for a competing network. Because it's paid for doesn't mean it's in the best interest of the hosting network. Isn't this the land of the free? Or should we take all freedom away from corporations because they are "evil"? I'm liberal, but I love my freedom and respect the freedoms granted to corporations.

joshua

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/31/2004 04:45:30 PM · #7

Originally posted by pcody:

well said

as a football fan who also watches for the commercials, i'd like to hope that i could take those three hours off from political bullcrap on either side. the super bowl commercials aren't about information, they're about entertainment and cbs should be able to so what they want with their time. and how many of those US representatives that object to this are conservatives? this is just pure partisan crap as usual

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/31/2004 06:09:28 PM · #8

The point was that MoveOn was NOT asking CBS to donate time to air matters of public concern; they, just like the President's Council on Drug Abuse had information they felt important to the American public, and were willing to pay retail price to do so.

In America, you are not allowed to refuse service to someone because of their race, color, creed, etc., particularly if you receive Federal money or otherwise use the public's resources for private profit. Read any college catalog for an example of a typical non-discrimination clause.

CBS is not appointed with being the gatekeeper of what information about our government is suitable for our ears, rather they are charged with using the airways in such a manner as to provide a public benefit. I believe that political speech has traditionally enjoyed greater protections from the courts than commercial speech. To say that it is of a greater benefit to the American public that more men know how get hard-ons by taking DRUGS than to understand how we're going to pay for a TRILLION DOLLARS of stuff we've already bought is either idiotic or deliberate disinformation.

Now, perhaps some people feel censorship is OK -- I know a majority of Americans have not supported the protections of the Bill of Rights for a long time. Just please don't pretend that this is anything other than censorship by the corporate/government establishment, protecting its ass(ets).

Message edited by author 2004-01-31 18:09:46.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

01/31/2004 06:27:25 PM · #9

SO you ARE saying that a program has to accept any paying customer? No matter what the message? If you make an exception for this ad, you will have to make exceptions for others.
I believe not.
This has nothing to do with public debate or discrimination. A commercial(by your own statement)ad was proposed for a program and the owners of that program felt they had already booked ads that were better suited to the subject of the program. A football game is not the place where anyone I know of would turn to each other and start discussing the budget deficit or what candidate has better ideas about how to save the country. I have been told the best way to suceed in advertising is to match your message to your audience. Those that don't, are bound to fail.

dacrazyrn

Nikon D300

01/31/2004 06:31:27 PM · #10

I agree with archiral. this is political bipartisan crap. If this is allowed to be aired (against Bush), then his side also is suppose to get fair time for their view. All politics, and crap I could do without. see and hear enough of it. don't want it with my football, when I have a sunday off I want something I to enjoy watching, to relax.

01/31/2004 06:39:19 PM · #11

As far as how I feel about rights and the budget and Mr. burning my money Bush, I understand. I'm as afraid as the next person. But the rights of one group should not be compromised because another group feels that what they have to say is more important. One commercial wouldn't convince me to vote one way or the other. I have followed all the debates and when it comes time to vote, I hope a lot of other people will have studied the situation and that they will vote.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/31/2004 07:18:35 PM · #12

I pulled the following from the United States Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, I think in sub-chapter III.

I believe it represents a codified (but almost completely unenforced) description of how public resources are to be used, in exchange for monopolistic control and exploitation of those resources.

CBS gets a government-enforced monopoly over part of the EM spectrum -- they owe each of us something in exchange for appropriating our right to use that bandwidth ourselves.

This is the law of the land.
===========================
//uscode.house.gov/download.htm
===========================
... the Commission shall include safeguards to protect the public interest in the use of the spectrum and shall seek to promote the purposes specified in section 151 of this title and the following objectives:

(A) the development and rapid deployment of new technologies,
products, and services for the benefit of the public, including
those residing in rural areas, without administrative or
judicial delays;

(B) promoting economic opportunity and competition and
ensuring that new and innovative technologies are readily
accessible to the American people by avoiding excessive
concentration of licenses and by disseminating licenses among a
wide variety of applicants, including small businesses, rural
telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of
minority groups and women;

(C) recovery for the public of a portion of the value of the
public spectrum resource made available for commercial use and
avoidance of unjust enrichment through the methods employed to
award uses of that resource ...

Message edited by author 2004-01-31 19:19:36.

01/31/2004 08:21:55 PM · #13

Are you now implying that no commercial network has the right to profit from commercials? Or are you saying that because this is the most watched program of the year, the station has to give away all it's commercial time, because it's not fair that they can make money?
Again, what gives any group the right to demand a specific commercial be aired? They were willing to pay to get it on the air. That puts them smack dab into the court of all the other advertisers. Can you imagine the number of companies that were bidding on the right to air their work? Do you think there is enough time to air all of them?
I feel you are getting confused. You want the ad to be seen by viewers because of it's perceived public good and think CBS should have accepted it because of that, yet the willingness of MoveOn to pay removes them from the "public good" side. They have acted in the same manner as the drug and beer companines you dislike. They are all out there trying to get our attention and are willing to pay for it, even your group. A commercial is a commercial.

Russell2566

01/31/2004 08:42:28 PM · #14

Without jumping too deep into the political crap, CBS has every right not to air that crap by MoveOn.org. HOW DARE YOU ASSUME THAT YOU CAN MAKE A BUSINESS DO WHAT EVER YOU WANT. This is not russia my friend!!!

There is absolutly no way you can convince me that it is even in good taste much less for good public information. I'm sure their commercial is full of lies and half-truths. Of course I'm sure you wouldn't be jumping on board of a truth in advertising bandwagon that could follow if CBS did air the commercial.

BTW: Wanna flush america down the toilet? Vote Liberal!

Message edited by author 2004-01-31 20:43:20.

StevePax

Canon PowerShot S50

01/31/2004 08:51:12 PM · #15

CBS is a business, who chooses not to promote organizations or ideas that go against it's own ideals. This is what is done every day by every business in the world. Wake up, folks. Business and capitalism are not bad.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/31/2004 09:22:16 PM · #16

Originally posted by StevePax:

They are a business which has been given monopolistic control over a PUBLIC resource -- THAT is why they AGREED to operate their business in a non-discriminatory manner which contributes to the public good.

Now, if they want to distribute THEIR message in some way which doesn't utilize that public resource, they are pretty much free to do so. But I think they'd find mailing DVDs to every household more expensive than broadcasting.

Sorry, but US law does not give them free rein to discriminate abitrarily. And I'll have to disagree -- it's been my experience that unrestrained, unregulated capitalism is not good for the public, only for the owners.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/31/2004 09:29:33 PM · #17

Originally posted by Russell2566:

I'm not a liberal. But I do find it amusing that you "KNOW that "it's all lies" without seeing it.

"My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts."

I do know that someone's going to have to pay that extra TRILLION DOLLARS the wealthiest few percent of Americans have oblicgated ut to -- I'd like to find out who and how and how much, since I suspect it's likely to be me and my kid, not Mr. Bush or his cronies.

GoldBerry

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

01/31/2004 09:57:38 PM · #18

If I were in control of CBS I wouldn't have run the ad either. It's pure propaganda - one group's opinion. I'm a Born Again Christian and would LOVE to run a commercial depicting everyone who hasn't given their heart to Christ spending an eternity in hell, but that ain't gonna happen my friend because it's - say it with me now - CON-TRO-VER-SIAL and only my beliefs, not to be confused with the beliefs of others. It's the exact same thing.

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

01/31/2004 10:05:00 PM · #19

So, which do you favor, socialism or communism?

Originally posted by GeneralE:

....... And I'll have to disagree -- it's been my experience that unrestrained, unregulated capitalism is not good for the public, only for the owners.

01/31/2004 10:24:06 PM · #20

CBS pays for their ability to broadcast. It's not a free service provided by the government. How many networks are there, including PBS? If there is only one that you can think of, then it is not a monopoly. Each advertiser is free to sell their products on whatever network they can make a deal with. There have been plenty of times that the networks have refused to air commercials that they thought were a bad fit with their program.
There are plenty of places that would air this ad. MPR has done several reports on it.
It's not very democratic to force an independent business to do something that is not in it's best interest. But. If you can find any law or precedent that states point blank that private brocasting networks HAVE to air "paid for" commercials that they feel do not conform to their policies and that they HAVE to place them in a program of the third party's choice no matter what, I'll believe everything you have posted so far. The law you posted is just a general outline. It has no specifics. It would be hard to use it as a basis of claiming discrimination.
It sounds like what you have in bold print might concern what the commission might not do. They cannot award a license to a favored party but must go through procedures to make sure it is given fairly and also they must make part of the band available to public stations. In other words they can't sell the whole band to the highest bidder. I'm pretty sure I'm correct. Maybe you should reread the intro paragraph. A and B certainly pertain to the commission.