oh come on.
CBS is said to have refused to run MoveOn's winning ad, citing its policy not to run commercials dealing "with controversial issues of public importance." CBS will instead run ads from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy -- apparently an issue of public importance that is not controversial. Who would of thought an ad criticizing a $1 trillion deficit was more "controversial" than an ad about the war on drugs?
Here's what the true libertarians have been saying for a long time -- the biggest reason to worry about concentrated media in a world where media is regulated is exactly this.
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (38)
Yep, that's completely crooked and dishonest of CBS. What can we do to protest?
Sign me up.
No kidding, I second that.
How about a halftime MoveOn.org internet rally where we can all turn off the TV and watch the moveon 30seconds commercial.
If the TVs go off at halftime CBS loses ad revenue, if we can get some press coverage on the rally.
We need a slogan:
Superbowl...Halftime...TV off... MOVEON!
www.moveon.org
One good thing: this attempt at censorship will probably ensure the ad gets wider coverage. In the long run, old media like CBS are probably going to be replaced by the Internet, which can't come too soon.
There has to be a network with the gumption to run this ad that will be broadcasting a large event soon. I was thinking... perhaps a better idea than blowing a ton of money on one spot is to get a network to run the ad a bunch of times during various prime-time programs. It doesn't make much sense to see such a great ad only run once... (I am probably missing something if the superbowl was only part of the ad initiative).
Funny how our local CBS affiliate shows commercials for honorindiantreaties.org a half a dozen times a day. These ads are -very- critical of NYS government.
Maybe network policies and affiliate policies in this matter differ?
Last time I looked, CBS was a private corporation. They can run (or not run) whatever they like.
Last time I looked, CBS was a private corporation. They can run (or not run) whatever they like.
look again, just me – and may we suggest that you open your eyes this time.
CBS is a private corporation with a government license to broadcast their signal over the public airwaves.
that license comes with strings. lots of them.
censorship of political speech – and this is what we are talking about here – is one of the most fundamental rights citizens of a democracy enjoy. it is perhaps THE single most important right.
censorship of political speech should never, never, never be allowed.
what the hell is happening to america?
Hypocritcal advertising standards are my anti-drug.
three blind mice,
Could you point out the exact 'string' you're talking about? The closest thing I can find is 47 U.S.C. §315, but it seems to only apply to candidates.
Could you point out the exact ‘string’ you’re talking about? The closest thing I can find is 47 U.S.C. §315, but it seems to only apply to candidates.
our comment was a response to just me’s stated position that a private corporation “can run (or not run) whatever they like.” this is, of course, a patently ignorant statement. title 47 of the code of federal regulations, to which you refer, includes an exhaustive list of strings concerning what a “private corporation” may do with its licensed broadcast frequencies. on top of this, the federal election commission imposes another layer of rules concerning what a “private corporation” may do to influence elections.
what the good professor tried to point out in his FPP is that when access to the airwaves is controlled by government regulators, and when those who are regulated are concentrated into a massive single entity with the ability to influence the regulators, there is a significant risk that democracy will suffer.
allowing CBS (a private corporation) to deny the public access to the its own radio spectrum and censor the public’s fundamental constitutional right to free political expression is a stark and ugly example of the dim future for freedom under republican warlords.
supporting CBS’s decision from a pro-business stance is typical of drug-addled conservative rhetoric which dominates the airwaves in america.
where we are from, this is called fascism and we three blind mice watch in horror as it is spreads its dark, evil shadow over the american "homeland" cheered on by pro-business, flag-waving automatons.
we wish the kind professor would stop posting so many political items in his blog! arguing IP is a welcome diversion and a good many recent news items have been passed over in favor of presidential politics.
here are but a few which we humbly suggest:
Israel: Stealing copyright privileges
UK: Software police get tough on pirates
Canada: Microsoft sues 17-year-old over copyright issue
Europe: Six EU states booked over copyright lending
sorry, that last post was not intended to be anonymous...
three blind mice,
I wholeheartedly agree with you on moral grounds, but I was wondering if you knew of a specific regulation which would prohibit what CBS is doing- your post (at least the way I read it) seemed to imply you did. If you do, please let me know. If not, well I already agree with you ;).
I really didn't mean for my post to be quite so inciting- I was just trying to milk you for information.
It's no less than the collapse of your great nation. Better start running.
p
- maybe we'll see the Real American Revolution (finally!)
evan, our sincere apologies if we reacted harshly. this stuff makes our blood boil.
"Section 312 (a) (7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as added by Title I of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, authorizes the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to revoke any broadcasting station license "for willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy.""
as with the reference to title 47 of the CFR which you posted earlier, this appears to only apply to candidates and not their advocates.
in any case, you can be reasonably certain that fcc chairman powell, son of colin powell, will make no move to sanction CBS.
/cynicism
A little off topic, but has anyone sat around and watched a tv show from the 70's or 80's and thought. That would never get aired today, it is too radical or (pick your descriptor). I heard a song the other day I hadn't heard in a while, if it were released as new today it would have "Parenetal Advisory" on it for the content of the song.
I liked it very its blog... I am Brazilian of Rio De Janeiro... when will be able visits mine blog... has a translator there... what you find of the politics of reciprocity that the Brazilians had adopted in the airports, as well as the Americans you had made for people of the entire world?IT HAD UNTIL A PILOT Of AMERICAN AIRLINES THAT MADE An OBSCENO GESTURE To the BEING PHOTOGRAPHED In the AIRPORT ... YOU FIND THAT THIS IMPLIES IN THE RELATIONS?
Remember guys, "money is not speech" and "advertising is not speech". I thought democrats (and liberals in particular) favored restricting the influence of money in politics? What is more damaging than a bunch of rich, angry, white guys buying up ad time and running their own commercials? Don't we want to stop this? Wasn't stopping this on of the purposes of McCain-Feingold?
Be careful when you start down the slippery slope...it will bite you quicker than you think.
Very entertaining. You play the so called hardboiled never give up underdog liberal well. Too bad you missed out on the upper tier roles like George Will.
Wake up, democracy died when Lincoln freed the corporations and enslaved the rest of us.
jeff, with all due respect to your insightful comment, money's not at issue here. the main issue of this thread is CBS denying move.on the opportunity to purchase advertising time during a major broadcast event on specious grounds of its "controversial content."
you are 100 percent correct that money is not speech, but the 30 second move.on ads seem to us to be very much speech. even more importantly, they would appear to be political speech, that sort of speech which is most valuable in a democracy.
using money to facilitate political speech is one thing, using a government granted broadcast license to suppress speech is quite another.
as for the slippery slope, we're not starting down it, we're trying to bloody climb up it.
flarg watchboy, even worse than playing the the so-called hardboiled, never give up, liberal underdog....
we're playing the soft-boiled, never-even-got-out-of-the- starting-gate, totally-dismissed-by-the-american-body-politic, libertarian role.
and getting the yolk just right is a real challenge.
We are talking about money here, for the "speech" we are talking about are commericals. To air a commercial, you have to pay up with money. Pepsi does it. Why can't MoveOn?
A "bunch of rich, angry, white guys buying up ad time." You're talking about the guys at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, right? They bought air time to run a commercial dealing "with controversial issues of public importance" during the Super Bowl. There are many Americans who are completely against the issues as espoused by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, and they would see red during the commercial were it not for the fact that they have been conditioned to such propaganda by decades of similar propaganda.
Yet MoveOn can't do the exact same thing? I guess that's because this is newer propaganda, that we are not as used to, and thus more people would see red when their commerical aired, and CBS wants passive consumers, not angry citizens on their hands.
Just about every commercial we ever see is from a bunch of rich guys buying up their own air time. We call it advertising and we are used to it. When someone new tries to play the game we cry foul. Correction: When someone wishes to upset the status quo we cry foul. Guaranteed that if MoveOn had a commercial that praised patriotism it would run. Hypocrites.
A somewhat related thought occurs to me after reading all the comments: I wonder if, in the long run, the country might be better served by selling all spectrum instead of giving some of it away to the broadcasters. I know broadcasters are supposed to perform public services (like running PSAs and educational programming and so on) in return for free spectrum but the public never seems to be pleased with the results--I know I'm not. What a (relative) relief it must be to be a cable-only channel, free from the obligations of free spectrum. CBS has already done enough prior to this for me to have discounted their relevance or importance as a source of news (other than sports); this is just another brick in that wall. Selling all spectrum would mean admitting defeat, however, with regard to getting commercial interests to hold up their end of the bargain.
What a (relative) relief it must be to be a cable-only channel, free from the obligations of free spectrum.
actually jan this solves nothing. cable requires a right of way in order to reach your house. (this was a big issue in the 1970’s when the electric utilities were forced to let cable companies string their coax on the utility poles.) radio spectrum, or land, it’s still public property somewhere which has to be allocated in order to make it work.
selling off all the radio spectrum would be a very bad idea indeed since this is the only communications medium which doesn’t require physical connections to reach everyone. increasing the amount of unlicensed spectrum is a promising idea, but this also no panacea.
at the end of the day, there is no replacement for responsible and independent government of the people, for the people and by the people.
this is what the republican warlords, wrapped in the flag of liberty, are working day and night to abolish in america - and abroad.
the september 11 terrorists scored a bigger victory than they ever could have imagined.
CBS has been reduced to a bunch of cowards.
Even if MoveOn can't run the ad during the Super Bowl, CBS's decision only helps the MoveOn campaign. MoveOn is not a traditional political interest group -- MoveOn is completely viral, MoveOn is not a group as much as it is a meme.
Now MoveOn is all over the news -- and the media is re-running the ad for MoveOn free of charge! Pundits on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, you name it, are playing clips of the ad and discussing the issue of free speech in corporate controlled media -- not necessarily the message of the ad, but it spreads the MoveOn meme. I'm sure more people have seen the full advertisment online by now, along with the other finalists in their competition, than are on the MoveOn.org mailing list.
So the question I ask is....Does MoveOn need the Super Bowl?
The Super Bowl Helps. Think of Apple's 1984 ad.
Everyone's seen it even if they were not watching the only time that it was run as an ad.
If advertising is outlawed, only outlaws will advertise....
Joshua,
I think perhaps you're being overly optimistic. MoveOn most desperately needs the Super Bowl, because the Super Bowl reaches tens of millions of people who don't watch much news or commentary. These are people who vote and who can be persuaded, if they can be reached.
I agree they've gotten some good mileage out of it, but the actual message they're trying to get across isn't what's being discussed on the news and talk shows. Instead, the secondary questions of free speech and media access are overriding the primary message of the spot.
"All publicity is good publicity" is an old saying from an old communication regime. I don't believe it's true now, if indeed it ever was.
This sounds like the same thing that Adbusters had been complaining about and arguing for forever. Perhaps it is ture that truly freeing advertising time would bite liberals in the butt, but those "rich white guys'" buying power has the potential to be offset by the power of organizations like MoveOn. I don't know. If airwaves advertising was free to anyone who could pay, would that defeat campagin finance reform? Is campagin finance reforme therefore a bad idea after all?
I would agree with three blind mice on this one. CBS seems to be creating quite a pattern of Censorship. Not just the horrible, greedy, don't-rock-the-boat style Corporate censorship, but one relating to a particular political idealogy. Note getting rid of the Reagan miniseries at the behest of the "Right". And while, I don't necessarily think that such action is completely wrong (as in the case of say banning a pro Neo-nazi commercial) I think that one should be explicit about it, as CBS would probably freely admit that they were banning a Neo-Nazi commercial because of content, not some corporate cop-out about "controversial issues."
*sigh*.
On posting political items...I think they are very topical, as the political environment is intimately involved with the IP rights issue. Any discussion of the merits or deficits of particular political positions bears in some fashion on the attitude of those promoting that position towards other issues. Someone who takes up the side of pharmaceutical companies in the health care debate is likely to similarly support the big entertainment companies with regards to our beloved IP issue.
Also, this is Prof. Lessig's blog, and he should post on anything he feels is of interest to him. That's the whole point of blogs, isn't it? If he wants to post about Richard Feynman's obsession with Tuvan throat-singing, I think it's up to him.
Scientific American article on Tuvan throat-singing
Just in case you thought I made that up. :)
Let's see, CBS has license to broadcast over the public airwaves that, presumably, can be revoked by the executive branch of the government. CBS subsequently refuses to run an ad that is critical of the head of that branch. Hmmm...
The problem that plagues many Blogs is link spam. Google's current ranking algorithm places a lot of weight on links. Thus links are important and desired by companies trying to rank well on Google. Link popularity is critical with Google - whereas search engines like Inktomi - feeding MSN, HotBot and soon Yahoo - rank websites based on text, keyword density, site structure and other on-page factors. One of the quickest ways a Blog owner could stop this link spam is to disable HTML in the comments and disable the live URL link - unless of course Google quits ranking based on links and instead starts placing more weight to on-page factors even business cards. Immunize your blog and disable HTML.
CBS was never my favorite anyway.
I want to warn everyone about the "Second Address Line Scam". Two of my business card customers were victimized last week and it could easily happen to anyone. Please read the article at http://www.internetretailer.com/article.asp?id=13243. It explains how crooks are exploiting this and how to protect your self.