MoveOn won't
MoveOn has launched a campaign to convince CBS to change its policy. Here's the polispam they'd like people to send:
Subject: The ad CBS will not airDear friend,
During this year's Super Bowl, you'll see ads sponsored by beer companies, tobacco companies, and the Bush White House. But you won't see the winning ad in MoveOn.org Voter Fund's Bush in 30 Seconds ad contest. CBS refuses to air it.
Meanwhile, the White House and Congressional Republicans are on the verge of signing into law a deal which Senator John McCain (R-AZ) says is custom-tailored for CBS and Fox, allowing the two networks to grow much bigger. CBS lobbied hard for this rule change; MoveOn.org members across the country lobbied against it; and now the MoveOn.org ad has been rejected while the White House ad will be played. It looks an awful lot like CBS is playing politics with the right to free speech.
Of course, this is bigger than just the MoveOn.org Voter Fund. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) submitted an ad that was also rejected. We need to let CBS know that this practice of arbitrarily turning down ads that may be "controversial" – especially if they're controversial simply because they take on the President – just isn't right.
To watch the ad that CBS won't air and sign the petition to CBS to run these ads, go here
MoveOn.org will deliver the petition by email directly to CBS headquarters.
Thanks.
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (30)
FYI: Your hyperlink to http://www.moveon.org/cbs/ad/ is broken. The double quote after the URL is missing.
And good work helping spred this issue.
thanks. fixed.
Okay, then what if the Aryan Nation wants to run an ad? What about NAMBLA? Should they be allowed to? What differentiates them from your favorite cause?
CBS has the right to say that viewers are watching the SuperBowl to be entertained, and part of that enterainment includes the commercials. They should be able to choose what ads do and don't run. If you have a problem then run your ad at some other time. MoveOn knew from the start that their ad would be rejected and they did it just to get the free publicity boost. Brilliant, but it should be ignored.
CBS said it was not accepting the ad because it was too "controversial." I could understand why an ad promoting the Aryan Nation would be controversial. So too with NAMBLA. But is attacking the deficit really controversial? Or has relativism simply eroded anyone's ability to distinguish?
The topic on deficit by itself is not controversial.
It is the way that MoveOn presents it. It is not
an education on deficit as claimed in the small
print about the purpose of MoveOn. What MoveOn
does is to promote propaganda.
I really have no sympathy for MoveOn and so,
I have no opinion on whether CBS should allow
an ad from MoveOn. If CBS allows a pro-Bush
ad during Super Bowl, I may change my opinion.
MoveOn should stop acting like a whining
child and move on.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
in this comment in the public domain.
Does CBS really need to have a rational reason for rejecting the ad as long as they don't violate their broadcast license? Isn't their thinking simply, "we think most people watching won't like it if we broadcast this ad, possibly hurting our viewership, therefore we're not going to broadcast it'?
And to cast this as an example of the bad effects of "mediacon" is ridiculous, the Superbowl is only broadcast on one network each year and each year that network would be able to choose which ads to broadcast; this would occur no matter how large or small CBS, Fox etc. were.
Larry -AS you said yourself (in re: Darl McBride), CBS cannot be charged with violating anyone's right to free speech. If they don't want to carry the ad, that's their perogative. Moveon should just, um, move on to some other venue...
But isn't the point that TV is dominated by a few large players and they get to decide what content people get to see? There's no way round it, even when people are willing to pay to have their views aired?
The "few large players" put stuff on TV they think people want to watch. If people don't watch, advertisers won't advertise and the players lose money. I'm sure "moveon" will find someone to take their money, CBS happens to have the luxury of airing the Superbowl and thus gets to pick and choose which advertisers they want to have, and "moveon" lost out.
Thanks Larry, for the response. I do appreciate the discussion.
In terms of the "controversial" reason for the ad being rejected, I think that CBS does have a basis there. I'm not saying that if I were CBS that I'd cancel the ad too, but they do have a point.
Two reasons why CBS might think the ad is too controversial, one is "unfair" and the other is "fair".
1) The Superbowl has a national audience. A large number of people in the middle of the country (wrongly) associate MoveOn with the Hitler ad. It's not a fair criticism on their part, but it's how the story played. If they saw a MoveOn ad on the Superbowl (or knew that it was going to play) I wouldn't be too surprised if they boycotted CBS's coverage. That hurts CBS more than the additional money they'd get from MoveOn. It's not "fair" to MoveOn, but it's a rational business decision on the part of CBS.
2) I personally am already tired of political ads and the election season has barely started. If CBS made a policy of not having any directly political ads (no pro-Bush, no anti-Bush, no pro-Dean, no anti-Dean, etc) then I think that's very fair. I'd definitely groan and change the channel if I saw a political ad on during the SuperBowl. At other times (during the local news, etc) I think that political ads are to be expected and that's fine. But the SuperBowl is a special event. If you want to count the anti-drug ads as "political" then CBS is being hypocritical, but I think those are intended in the spirit of "public health" instead of "politics." Yes, they are tied to politics, but so is everything if you look far enough.
That's just my $0.02.
Thanks for providing the forum,
Yawn
Stanford Law '07
CBS rents the airwaves for the American public. It's their legal duty to give equal time. They always give the conservative side of the story, and they don't need to pay for it. CBS won't even let the other side pay for the privilege. And the ad is hardly controversial in its making. Have you seen it? It's very subtle. You'd actually have to be paying attention to get it. The only reason it would be called controversial (or, gasp! unpatriotic!) is because it questions the President. And we know how that goes over now-a-days. These are sad times we live in. God forbid a commercial sell ideas instead of alcoholism and sex ("AND TWINS!"). Which would you rather your children watch?
To BC:
As a hypothetical question, what if CBS were only a cable channel? They wouldn't be renting airwaves from anybody and that argument wouldn't hold water. Would a private network then be entitled to show whatever communication they wanted to?
Given that it's true that CBS does use public airwaves, I'm not sure that they are biased conservatively. We could argue for weeks about that without ever proving anything. But they aren't showing political ads from EITHER side of the issue so I'm not sure that argument holds water. Their editorial content is entirely differnent.
What would I want my kids to watch? I would hope that I would educate them about politics through more than 30-second soundbites and encourage them to form opinions based on more complex reasoning than the imagery in the advertisement (which I have viewed). It's not great that my kids would see the "twins" ad, but it's part of life and they might as well get used to it. It's nothing they couldn't find on the Internet. I think that factor is going to vastly change the perceptions of media and obscenity...
But, again, my $0.02
Yawn
As a hypothetical question, what if CBS were only a cable channel? They wouldn’t be renting airwaves from anybody and that argument wouldn’t hold water
yawn.... how do you imagine that cable channels are delivered to your home? without the public’s goodwill to permit cable companies a right of way to sting their coax on public land, there would be no cable.
bottom line is that CBS shouldn’t have the right to pick and choose who gets access to the broadcast spectrum. no one is asking them to suffer economically. if they sell advertising, then they should have to make it available to anyone who is willing to pay the cost. if there is a competition for the time, then let market price determine who is willing to pay the most.
as for NAMBLA and the Aryan Nation, if NAMBLA can create an advertisement which does not violate any laws (which is hard to imagine) let them bid for the airtime. same with the Aryan Nation. unpopular speech shouldn’t be censored just because it is unpopular. this is america....
oops, that was america!
we forgot, silly us. that country no longer exists.
sorry, nevermind.
that america thing was such a nice idea.
pity what happened to it.
As a hypothetical question, what if CBS were only a cable channel? They wouldn’t be renting airwaves from anybody and that argument wouldn’t hold water
yawn.... how do you imagine that cable channels are delivered to your home? without the public’s goodwill to permit cable companies a right of way to sting their coax on public land, there would be no cable.
bottom line is that CBS shouldn’t have the right to pick and choose who gets access to the broadcast spectrum. no one is asking them to suffer economically. if they sell advertising, then they should have to make it available to anyone who is willing to pay the cost. if there is a competition for the time, then let market price determine who is willing to pay the most.
as for NAMBLA and the Aryan Nation, if NAMBLA can create an advertisement which does not violate any laws (which is hard to imagine) let them bid for the airtime. same with the Aryan Nation. unpopular speech shouldn’t be censored just because it is unpopular. this is america....
oops, that was america!
we forgot, silly us. that country no longer exists.
sorry, nevermind.
that america thing was such a nice idea.
pity what happened to it.
As a hypothetical question, what if CBS were only a cable channel? They wouldn’t be renting airwaves from anybody and that argument wouldn’t hold water
yawn.... how do you imagine that cable channels are delivered to your home? without the public’s goodwill to permit cable companies a right of way to sting their coax on public land, there would be no cable.
bottom line is that CBS shouldn’t have the right to pick and choose who gets access to the broadcast spectrum. no one is asking them to suffer economically. if they sell advertising, then they should have to make it available to anyone who is willing to pay the cost. if there is a competition for the time, then let market price determine who is willing to pay the most.
as for NAMBLA and the Aryan Nation, if NAMBLA can create an advertisement which does not violate any laws (which is hard to imagine) let them bid for the airtime. same with the Aryan Nation. unpopular speech shouldn’t be censored just because it is unpopular. this is america....
oops, that was america!
we forgot, silly us. that country no longer exists.
sorry, nevermind.
that america thing was such a nice idea.
pity what happened to it.
sorry for the triple post!
To answer a few points...
1) This is not 'censorship'. The government is not involved. Ergo, no one is being censored. The ad in question is freely available on the internet, and no one has been given a life sentece or fed into a woodchipper for producing it.
2) CBS is a private company. They are allowed to make decisions on best business practice. I watched a panel show on ESPN ('Around the Horn') with independent journalists who all agreed it would be a bad move for CBS to run the ad, considering the demographics of Superbowl viewers. (As for their political leanings, didn't they used to be called the 'Clinton B.S. network?' And have you ever seen 60 minutes?)
3) Some people believe different things about 'America the concept' than the ubiquitous 3 blind mice. Some people believe the fundamental principle is private property protected by the rule of law. They believe the spectrum should be sold, cable should be deregulated, and the FCC should take a long walk off a short pier. These people are called Libertarians (and yes, Cato misrepresented Lessig about the IP issue -- but disagreeing w/ leftists is a reflex).
4) If Prof. Lessig is reading -- I saw you speak at Northwestern about the Creative Commons. It was easily the best talk I've been to. Keep up the good work.
Would it be OK for CBS to charge 1 Million Dollars a minute to Republican causes and 2 Million Dollars a minute to Democratic causes?
If they are in possession of pure capitalistic free will, I think it would be. However, since the whole reason of licensing spectrum is based on the scarcity of spectrum (ahem), it would appear to me they have an obligation to treat all comers fairly, ie, ergo, summa cum laude, anybody who can come up with the cash, gets to put in an ad, if you get too many, the price goes up.
Jay -
I'm not sure they do have an obligation to treat all comers fairly. Just because they have a license from the government doesn't mean they have to bend to the government's will on everything they air. This comes under the line of cases grouped as "you can't make receipt of a benefit contingent upon giving up a fundamental right." For example, IIRC, the government couldn't condition your receipt of social security payments on you giving up your right to vote (perhaps Prof. Lessig can help us out on this one).
Similarly, the government couldn't condition its grant to CBS of a broadcast license on CBS submitting everything it broadcasts to the government for prior approval. There may be some room for "reasonable" restrictions around the edges, but I doubt that requiring CBS to accept ads from anyone who could afford to pay for them on, say, a first come first serve basis would be one of them (though I could be wrong).
In addition, while licensing spectrum might originally have been done because it was thought to be scarce (which, IIRC, isn't the case now), today it might be done to prevent interference, in which case government oversight is only needed to prevent such interference and not to ensure that "everyone has a say."
And now for a little left wing censorship
Ugh,
I think the distinction here is that the airwaves are part of the public trust, not a benefit -- although I confess total ignorance as to any cases in this area. Also, there is no fundamental right involved on CBS's part. The government (the people) can impose any restrictions they want (within constitutional bounds) on how CBS is allowed to use our airwaves.
I think when I say "scarcity" and you say "interference" we are talking about the same thing, which means that you can only have signals within so many MHZ of each other. There is some debate as to how scarce the bands actually are now with newer technology.
But how about the hypo I posed? What if there were two rate cards, one for R's and one for D's? (putting aside any price discrimination issues as not affecting competition in the economic sense). Would that be OK? Under the absolute property right formulation, I think that it would be.
Well, I would say the fundamental right involved on CBS's part is free speech.
As for charging D's more than R's, I'm not sure what you mean by "would that be okay." Would it be okay from the standpoint that the airwaves are a public trust and therefore is it okay for CBS to do that? I don't think I agree with the premise of that question. Certainly the streets and sidewalks are a "public trust", but I would think the KKK would have the right to keep certain people out of their group when they were marching, despite what any anti-discrimination statute might say. Same thing here.
I suppose CBS could set up an auction system and auction off superbowl ad spots, that way they would go to the highest bidder and CBS would get maximum revenue. But don't forget that CBS will be associated with the message of those ads and concerned with their current/future reputation. If they make a judgment call that the Superbowl watching demographic won't like "moveon" then they can choose not to air "moveon's" ad. If they choose to give a false and/or hypocritical reason for not airing it, well we can call them on it but I don't think forcing them to air it is the right remedy (nor revoking their license, fining them or much of anything else).
I agree that maybe forcing them to air it is not the right remedy, and I think that MoveOn knows this and is using this brouhaha as an alternate means of getting their message across (I bet downloads of the ad have skyrocketed).
But if I am reading your response correctly, you are saying it would be permissible for CBS to charge Democrats more than Republicans (or vice versa) for advertising (since they have the license to use the sidewalk)? If that is correct, or even if it isn't correct, my next question is, regardless of whether it is legal for CBS to do that, is that the right answer?
Jay
Jay -
If you're asking whether it's legal (outside of antitrust type things) for them to charge more for D's than R's, I would tentatively answer yes, but then again I don't know the exact licensing laws/regulations (and a lot of them are probably so old that they're unconstitutional but no one thinks it's worth their time to challenge them in court). It's probably one of those things that's legal but no one would ever do, because if they did then Congress would make it illegal (or at least try) plus it would alienate 1/2 their viewers because it would be bound to make headlines (whereas dissing "moveon" is probably not even known to the vast majority of the country). I think there is a general requirement for the networks to broadcast "in the public interest," but that term is so vague it could mean anything.
Again the KKK excluding individuals from the sidewalk/street while they are marching based on race is, as far as I know, perfectly constitutional (actually I should say perfectly "legal" and probably couldn't even be made illegal, murder isn't even unconstitutional). Is that better or worse than your hypothetical?
Is that the right answer? I would probably say yes, based on the world today. If CBS was the only TV station out there and there was a complete absence of all other media, then I would say no. Based on the way I think the world works today (or at least the US), if CBS did that, they (it) would be crucified and even most of the people on the right would hate them (because the shoe can always be on the other foot).
I think there are more sources of information available to more people today than ever before, and for anyone to say otherwise seems to me to be a bit silly.
This is not a case of left versus right wing censorship Jay. Neither was the case with the African Student of the Year award. These are cases of self imposed censorship (the market won't tolerate a MoveOn ad) and trained incapacity.
CBS will not air the Ad precisely because this IS a free market and any price MoveOn is willing to pay is not worth the potential backlash against the network in general. The objection to this should be as much against mainstream culture as it is about CBS. People should be more willing to at least hear out others opinions. They should also realize that silencing the messenger (CBS) is bad for everyone.
The case of the African American student of the year award is simply the case of bureaucrats who have no humour and went the way of fewest possible reprimands. African American is a euphamism for colored or black. Two terms which are ambiguous once you consider other dark skinned peoples (aborigines etc.) anyway. The spirit of the award is to recognize students who have made progress in closing the racial divide in this country. If I were a bureaucrat I would simply let it be myself. The white south african student was simply poking fun at the silly term 'african american'. A poorly chosen label that does not come close an adequate representation of those it was created for. This of course is not at all poking fun at the black students themselves. Against the spirit of the awards? Most definitely. Yet in the end, even if the white guy had won, it would have been a valid commentary in and of itself. This event is emblematic of the de-escalation of racial tension in the US. Additionally, it is indicative of a desire to remove cruft that has accumulated with progress towards racial equality (the term african american is poorly chosen).
I think your argument falls apart because it tries to equivocate two vastly different events. Furthermore, the causes behind these events, at least as I see it, are not driven by political ideology at all; but are manifestations of deep societal structures.
Actually, I am not sure I am making any argument, except just for the sake of argument. I also think you got "jay" confused with "jan" (who posted the african american student thing). I don't really see the applicability of that to what I am saying.
My main point is that due to the structure of broadcast (only 11 channels in VHF) and the fact that the airwaves are a public trust, broacast networks are kind of common carriers, and for them to be able to make content-based decisions as to who gets to use their resources is a little scary.
I am not buying the "market driven" argument though. There is an amount of money that will make CBS indifferent to the damage done to their credibility by airing a "controversial" ad -- that's the point of markets.
What we have here is the appearance of politics driving out market forces. (actually what we have here is leveraging one's market power to help change the political climate to increase that market power)
So I guess the point I am making is that since they are our airwaves, we get to make rules about what the people who license them can & cannot do, and maybe it would be a good idea to keep the amount of ideological censorship to a minimum. If you publish a paper, censor away. If you run a website, censor away. There is no real scarcity on the availability of those channels of information distribution.
If you license a piece of spectrum from we the people, you are gonna have to put the public interest in there with the profit mix, and if you can't make a profit while acting in the public interest, don't bid on the license.
Has the Super Bowl ever run an overtly political ad? I can't think of any. I doubt, very much, that they'd take on a pro-life ad, no matter how it was framed, so I don't see the trouble with the decision, frankly.
Come on here - this may seem fairly tame by the standards of movies that we all see, but to be broadcast on daytime TV during the SuperBowl? It is a little farther than standard spots. We don't show child pornography or drug use during these hours - child labor is pretty close. I admit that the point isn't these kids working now, but that just show how alarmist moveon.org is trying to be with this ad - they could show the kids in school or elsewhere, but they're hinting at child labor here.
I was wondering what could be more mainstream culture than a National Debt which has continued to increase an average of
$2.00 billion per day since September 30, 2003! Check out the national debt clock at http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ . The commercial is not about child labour but the fact that our children and their children will have to pay off all these no bid contracts given to the friends of the president. Brand spankin' new bridges, roads, hospitals, schools and power grids all built in Iraq . . . presents for Iraqi's at our children's expense. When I first arrived at this website I hoped I would hear some meaty legal arguments. Seems like most of you all don't want anyone to disturb your Super Bowl beer buzz which is exactly what CBS is trying to prevent. The Super Bowl has nothing to do with any viewer base. Do you think that the "Touched by an Angel" grandma's will be watching the Super Bowl en masse ? Do you really think that they will stop watching "Joan of Arcadia" just because of some thought provoking 30 second commercial airs while most of the men are staring into a porcelain bowl making room for more beer ? The Super Bowl has nothing to do with the rest of CBS programming. What is next . . . refusing to sell Kucinich an Escalade because Cadillac doesn't want to offend it's rich clientele seeing a blue collar President riding in the same car they drive to the golf course? Who needs a 4 ton truck to ride around a handful of clubs ? If someone is allowed to advertise alcohol and half naked women with children watching what is the matter with provoking a little thought? I wish there were more people making intelligent ads. Doesn't really matter to me though, I have better things to do on Sunday than watch the Conservative Broadcast Service.
ps: Someone please get YAWN a pot of coffee.
22.04 Jan 3, 2004 ” AND we will be joined LIVE by George W Bush right here on Super Bowl Sunday.” Just heard this as I walked in on the end of the CBS show about the all time greatest Super Bowl commercials. Sure sounded like tomorrow’s political advertisement to me. I am just amazed how many people feel so protective of this reckless mis-leader. Are you afraid of a 30 second ad made up of a bunch of children, a solo guitar and 2 lines of text asking who will pay the deficit. Do you really think he is that weak ? Maybe you are right after all since he sneaked in and out of Iraq after saying ‘Bring ‘em on.”
Where have the lawyers gone ?