TV stations urged to pull Roberts ad

[MaineDem]

At least one Maine television station decided Wednesday to pull a controversial political advertisement until it can be reviewed by its attorneys.

Republican activists, meanwhile, asked several other stations not to air the ad, which blasts Supreme Court nominee John Roberts for allegedly siding with violent anti-abortion groups.

Managers at WGME in Portland are holding the 30-second ad, created and distributed by NARAL, the pro-choice organization based in Washington, D.C. Some other stations will show the ad as scheduled.

...

"Our general approach would be to . . . see if there was anything false or misleading" in the ad, said Alan Cartwright, general manager of WGME, one of nine stations in Maine that reportedly sold time to NARAL.

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/local/050811judgeroberts.shtml

WGME is a SINCLAIR station. Cartwright was adamant about showing the Swiftboat Liars crap, too.

His email is [e-mail]

[wakeme2008]

1. link to ad

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/about/newsroom/pressrelease/20050808_roberts_ad.cfm

[saigon68]

14. ROBERTS IS SCUM

[EST]

2. These rascals do not place a premium on intellectual honesty.

edited to add-(or ethical cohesiveness)

[ixion]

3. funny how they moved ever so slowly, if at all, on the swift boat thing

despite the documented fact that it was bogus. :eyes:

[SuperWonk]

4. What side are these guys on?

Being aggresive is one thing, being wrong is another.

[ixion]

5. sinclair is a neocon xian holding

and this is one of their stations, which explains everything. ;-)

[SuperWonk]

6. What does it explain?

[ixion]

7. it explains that

this station is owned by an amoral, unethical group of extremist idealogues who's primary concern is the forwarding of their corporate dominionist agenda, rather than an semblance of reporting for the 'reality-based' community.

[SuperWonk]

8. Re:

Because they pulled an ad filled with bogus information?

Come on...

Am I misunderstanding you?

[ixion]

9. per my original point

when the swift boat bogus ads aired (for a month) where was this dedication to ferreting out bogus information then? hmmmm?

[SuperWonk]

10. Ahh...

I'm with you...
But, isn't the difference between the swift boat story and this one the fact that the first was contested on both sides, and the ladder is agreed on by everyone (except NARAL)?

[ixion]

11. the swift boat claims to 'truth' were discredited in the first couple days

yet the ads continued to run.

Conversely, when groups like MoveOn.org, etc have tried to run ads rebutting GOP talking points, they've been told that the station considers the material inappropriate.

I think it's crystal clear what Sinclair's agenda is.

[chapel hill dem]

15. Swift Boat Debunking website

Last year about this time, there was a website that debunked the SBV claims item-by-item. I tried www.swiftboatliars.com but that is not the site I remember. Does anyone know the link?
Thanks in advance.

[sendero]

21. Bogus..

... is in the eye of the beholder. How many ads full of lies by Republicans have been pulled?

If you are relying on factcheck.org for you opinion, you should consider that they are hardly an objective source.

IMHO, this ad is AN OPINION that some might not think is supported byt the facts but others might. The TV stations should but the fuck out, it's not like they give a shit when Republicans lie their asses off.

[Igel]

12. The ad that they're pulling has little to do

with almost anything reality based.

Is it better for them to have two misleading ads, or only one, if it's really reality that we're trying to be grounded in?

Running ads that are misleading to the point of being false does nothing for the reality-based community.

[bpilgrim]

18. -- --- ---------- --------------- --------------- - > MP3

http://news.globalfreepress.com/mp3/aar/af/aar-af-NARAL.web.mp3

http://www.naral.org

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[bpilgrim]

13. the more exposure the better - nice TACTIC!

http://www.naral.org

peace

[SuperWonk]

16. They might have exposure...

But I think it is all for the wrong things.... Hasn't NARAL just highlighted how both parties are behind Roberts?

Don't you agree?

[bpilgrim]

17. "all for the wrong things...."

this is about Roberts history... who else is gonna SpeakUp?

peace

[Norquist Nemesis]

19. Then they'ld better pro-rate the bill at the end of the month

If they're going to renig on a signed contract, they better adjust the terms. While they're at it, I think they should pull ALL Progress for America ads (or whatever misleading name they're absconding with). The DNC should start sending letters threatening lawsuits the slanderous claims those people make on Democrats and Liberals!

[SuperWonk]

20. Thoughts...

"this is about Roberts history... who else is gonna SpeakUp?"

My problem is not with someone speaking up... they should.
My problem is saying something that is obviously false, which then benefits the other side because of it.

[sendero]

22. Prove to me..

.... that what they are saying is "obviously false". I'm waiting.

[SuperWonk]

23. You must have seen this....

One example from the link below:

And the ad misleads when it says Roberts supported a clinic bomber. It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber and many other defendants in a civil case, but the case didn't deal with bombing at all. Roberts argued that abortion clinics who brought the suit had no right use an 1871 federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who tried to blockade clinics. Eventually a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed, too. Roberts argued that blockades were already illegal under state law.

http://www.factcheck.org/article340.html

[sendero]

24. That's what I thought...

... I'm sorry but factcheck.org is not the final arbiter of what is "true". NARAL's interpretation of Roberts' action is one, there can be others. But to call their interpretation a lie is ridiculous.

On the other hand, the Swift Boat bunch made up all kinds of lies. Who took them off the air?