Members of Congress Challenge CBS Decision to Not Run Moveon.org ....

[Emillereid]

Members of Congress Challenge CBS Decision to Not Run MoveOn.Org Commercial During Super Bowl


WASHINGTON - January 28 - Congressman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) sent a letter today, cosigned by 26 other Members of Congress, to CBS President Leslie Moonves criticizing the network for its refusal to air a commercial for MoveOn.org. In the letter, Sanders and the other Members described CBS' censoring of the ad as "an affront to free speech and an obstruction of the public's right to hear a diversity of voices over the public airwaves."



Viacom's CBS has rejected MoveOn.org's effort to buy an advertisement during this year's Super Bowl. The ad is the winner of a competition held by MoveOn.org among creators of 30 second ad about President Bush. The network claims they do not run issue advocacy ads. Yet, they previously have run a White House ad on drug use during the game. Furthermore, CBS stations nationwide make tens of millions of dollars every election year by selling ad spots to issue advocates.



In the letter the Members wrote, "Issue ads are commonplace and important for democratic debate. Yet, CBS seems to want to limit that debate to ads that are not critical of the political status quo, and in the case of the MoveOn ad, of the President and by extension the Republican-controlled Congress. Apparently, CBS feels that the topic covered in this paid advertisement --the federal government's budget crisis --is inappropriate or irrelevant for American viewers, despite being one of the most critical issues of our day.



"The choice not to run this paid advertisement appears to be part of a disturbing pattern on CBS's part to bow to the wishes of the Republican National Committee. We remember well CBS's remarkable decision this fall to self-censor at the direction of GOP pressure. The network shamefully cancelled a broadcast about former President Ronald Reagan which Republican partisans considered insufficiently flattering."...
http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0128-03.htm
Go Bernie Go!! I love this guy.

[David__77]

1. Good.

It's important to develop the perception of the fact that the media is indeed right-leaning and pro-big business.

[UpInArms]

2. Bernie Sanders is awesome!

This one is for Bernie :yourock:

[JuniorPlankton]

5. Just had an argument about the MoveOn ad with a local repub

His assertion is that it's wrong if the government stops the ad. Then it's censorship. When the station decides to pull being afraid of a conservative "reaction" it's OK. Free market...

Any comments?

[A J]

7. Free Market doesn't apply to the broadcast spectrum

The government licenses broadcast space to media companies with the understanding that they will use some of that space to further political discourse. While they can choose not to run ads, choosing not to run political ads is shady at best.

The government has time and time again affirmed that political discussion should not be quashed by the media. See equal-time laws, etc.

[LostInTheMaise]

23. Where is this documented?

I missed this gem in Civics 101.

[jpak]

24. They are supposedly running a Halliburton ad during the SB

A blatantly political issue ad at that (how they're so proud to supply the troops in I-raq)

The reason CBS canned the MoveOn ad was that they don't run such ads during the Super Bowl.

One standard for liberals - quite another for the repugs...

What horseshit.

[proud2BlibKansan]

42. The NFL rejected an ad

for Las Vegas during last year's Super Bowl. They were avoiding any connection of pro sports to gambling.

[AndyP]

8. I agree

While I think it's blatantly two-faced of them to not run the ad, yet running political ads at other times of the year. I think it is their right to not run the ad. Although I don't like other people (especially ginormous companies) thinking for me and telling me what I can and can't handle.

[Occulus]

48. Incorrect.

It is not their 'right' to broadcast anything. It is their privelege, as guardians of a publicly owned trust (namely, the airwaves themselves), to broadcast, and that privelege can be revoked at any time, for any reason.

Broadcast corporations which use airwaves (TV and radio) are not part of any free market. They are guardians of a public trust, and it is our entitlement in the absolutely strictest sense of the word to expect them to behave as such.

For CBS to refuse this ad is censorship, in its most literal form. Not only should they be ashamed of themselves, CBS should be blacked out nationally- no, globally- for a month for this and this alone.

They have betrayed the public. They deserve to be hurt, and hurt bad.

[denverbill]

9. Yes. CBS controls 39% of the airwaves in this country.

I, as a private citizen, can't just start telecasting on any frequency I want to and expect to remain out of jail. CBS has a license to operate a monopoly on those airwaves, and as such, is under an obligation to perform in the public interest.

Ask your 'friend' if he thinks Fox should be able to run only ads for Republicans? Or if he thinks all the other 'liberal media' should be allowed to run nothing but ads for Democrats.

[worldgonekrazy]

28. Tell him the airwaves are publicly owned

The gov't "leases" these airwaves out to corporations like CBS. Thus, because they are public commodities it makes sense that they should be subject to "free speech" protection like any other sphere of public life.

[meow2u3]

30. Censorship is censorship

Whether the government or some powerful corporation with close ties to government agencies obstruct free speech, it's censorship--pure and simple!

[Hawkeye-X]

10. I-VT

Dean's adopted home state has produced one of the best speakers in Congressional history. Why not vote for Vermonters like Dean?

Hawkeye-X

[fromVT]

14. and don't forget

Leahy and Jeffords too. :-)

[SoCalDem]

20. He is great.. I just wish he was 35 years old

so we could have him around another 40 years or so ..:)

[Voltaire99]

33. The Congress could use a Bernie Sanders or two...

Or two hundred!

Well done, Bernie et al.

[damnraddem]

3. Boycott CBS unless they show the ad.

Not just the Superbowl broadcast, boycott the network.

[MattNC]

6. yea right

i'm not missing the biggest game in my favorite's team history -- or 60 Minutes for that matter.

[Supormom]

16. I completely understand, Matt

If it were my team, I wouldn't boycott either. Oh, wait! I'm a Viking fan. :{

[Occulus]

49. Grow a spine!

This is more important than some piddly fottball game.

And yes, I do consider the superbowl just another piddly football game.

[denverbill]

11. I'm boycotting.

I hope the other ad-buyers know they are getting ripped off.

[GinaMaria]

18. my husband and I both are boycotting

CSI is my favorite show, but C'est La Vie. CBS is not on in our house any more.

[Chico Man]

19. Sorry, I haven't missed a patriots game all season

I may just do it after the game though.

[Norquist Nemesis]

4. Dick Durbin did a great job on this yesterday

I was jumping for joy that he was putting it into the record. He had alot of great points...including a "coincidence" on the 39% figure with the FCC regs. He really connected dots.

[mantis49]

37. Beef producers

will be running their "Beef: It's What's for Dinner" ads during the Super Bowl, according to an AP story in the Peoria Journal Star last night. This is in response to the mad cow scare/ crisis. In my opinion, that is an issue ad for the benefit of beef producers, especially large ones.

[A J]

12. Lets put this in perspective...

...from a social point a view. Which discussion is more important to society, Bush*'s terrible policies or which soft drink is better? C'mon people, we want people to be involved in our democratic process, but the media giants give us this?

[hippiechick]

13. don't think ... shop !

... it's the American way, after all !!!

:hippie:

[young_at_heart]

15. I just signed the petition

In the personal comments section I said, "This country used to have free speech. When bullying becomes the norm we are in trouble".

[gate of the sun]

17. I am glad they are getting this letter

I wrote to them myself......yet I don't think they listen to us people at all.....a little extra pressure can't hurt..I doubt they will change their mind but we can hope.

[proud patriot]

21. YES ! !

Keep making phone calls to CBS people ..

Write letters to your paper..

Woo Hoo !

[LostInTheMaise]

22. an affront to free speech

Is CBS now a government agency? I need help with understanding how a private business that makes its own decisions on what to run can be "an affront to free speech?"

If moveon.org refuses to post a wingers ad on its site is that also "an affront to free speech?"

[A J]

25. The thing is....

While the company may be private, the airwaves it uses to broadcasts are owned by the public and regulated by the government. The government grants licenses to private companies, like Viacom in exchange for agreeing to some rules to make sure a wide variety of voices make it on to the airwaves. This insures (marginal) diversity within the media monopoly.

It is a pretty okay system, when it isn’t being abused.

[LostInTheMaise]

26. So is the internet run by the Gov

I don't see any "affront to free speech" with DU or FR censoring input.

If you don't think the Gov runs the internet then you have not put up a bad enough site yet...

[A J]

27. The government doesn't run the internet...

...the way it runs tv because there is no limited broadcast spectrum. There can only be so many TV stations in an area, but the amount of internet sites are almost endless.

Much of the decency act that was directed toward the internet has been overturned. There really is much less regulation on the internet than tv. For instance, DU isn't subject to equal time laws (allthough they provide it nicely with "Equal Time with BB")

[Occulus]

50. The problem is

you're comparing apples and oranges. Quite literally, I might add.

TV- there are a limited number of possible broadcast channels. Not only that, but they need "room between". This further limits the number of possible broadcast channels.

Internet- Every IP addres constitutes a 'channel', and there are millions of posible 'channels'. I lease one myself, though I won't tell you exactly what my IP address is; that would be colossally stupid.

Point: TV and the internet are like a stocked fishpond and the ocean. Yes, they both have fish, but one is severely limited by available space. The other (the ocean) is not.

[meow2u3]

32. You just don't get it

Whether the government directly censors the press or media (for instance, the White House itself pulls, or orders the press to black out, an item which exposes the government as the dictatorship it is) or indirectly censors it (e.g., KKKarl Rove and/or the RNC pressures or intimidates a broadcast company or newspaper out of airing or printing stuff it finds unflattering), that alone amounts to censorship--the affront to free speech you sneer at!

The Republican leadership, be it in Congress, the White House, or even the courts, routinely shred the Constitution with impunity, and you're worried about whether DU or FR can legally be censored. What's wrong with you? Is your idea of free speech a license to curse out loud or slander people wherever and whenever you please, regardless of who's listening or targeted?

[Brinee]

29. Call 212-975-4114

Thom Hartmann gave out this number yesterday to register a complaint with CBS about their censorship of the MoveOn ad.

I called last night & got a message that the Mailbox was full (a very good sign).

So I took a chance & tried the next sequential number (212-975-4115) and got a live operator at CBS.

I registered my complaint and the operator said "OK I'll add it to the tally"

Whether she did or not, who knows. but it sounded like I wasn't the first call of this type she had received.

It would also be a good idea to complain to your local CBS affiliate.

Keep the pressure on!!

[Just Me]

35. Thank you.

The pressure must be kept on and turned up. Acquiescence or silence or resignation has no place in these times.

[Lorien]

38. Thanks Brinee

and welcome to DU! :hi:

[rocktivity]

31. Absolutely fabulous, sweetie darling!

This would have been unthinkable jsut a few months ago!


rocknation

[Robbien]

34. CBS is running three erectile dysfunction ads during the Super Bowl

Just read this on "That's Entertainment". How are these erectile dysfunction ads not inappropriate or irrelevant for American viewers?

CBS has a pretty skewed view of what is inappropriate.

[EllieDem]

36. I actually don't blame CBS........they want upbeat ads

not serious issue ads. This is a football game. People are NOT in that kind of mood. Sorry

[CatWoman]

39. ...........and GW Bush has restored honor and dignity in the White House,

too.

[otohara]

41. Yeah, A Small Dose of Reality on SB Sunday Is Unthinkable.

Heaven's knows it might just wake up the sheeple.

it's a beautiful spot, you should go check it out.

Viacom wants something from Bush (a VETO in order to keep the LA TV station they bought and might have to sell), it's worth a lot more than one 30 second spot from moveon.org

[Occulus]

51. Pardon me, but SO THE FUCK WHAT?

I don't care one single, little bit if people are 'in the mood' or not!

If they want upbeat ads, SO WHAT? *WE* own those airwaves, not CBS!

We, as in, We The People, own the airwaves! WHY is this such a hard idea for people to grasp?

This borders on illegal, and I damn well hope CBS gets pulled in front of Congress for their refusal. This is simply unconscionable, and We The People must respond!

[maggrwaggr]

40. What? CBS doesn't OWN the airwaves?

this is an outrage. We need to change the laws immediately so that corporations can actually own what is due them!

Yeah, that's what I wrote to CBS: You don't own the airwaves, motherfuckers. The people do.

[loudsue]

43. Think globally, ACT locally...call your LOCAL CBS station..

When the local CBS stations catch enough grief, they're going to let the headquarters know about it.

Right here in Raleigh, North Carolina, WRAL needs to hear from 37million outraged Americans prior to next Sunday. They still may not air the ad, but they're going to wish somebody did!

We need to start protesting our local affiliates to get these points across. They're always hosting these big events to make themselves look like they're an essential part of the community. We need to let them hold it, and expose them all for what they truly are: part of the propaganda machine that is wrecking our freedom.

:kick:

[ermoore]

44. Oh come on, think about it.

This is a good policy CBS has. Here's a link where it's explained better: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040128/nyw155_1.html

The way I understand it is that CBS doesn't run advocacy ads, because then it would allow those with more money to reach ridiculous numbers of people, which wouldn't be fair. Now ask yourself, who generally has more money, Democrats or Republicans? Suppose MoveOn.org got to buy their ad, but then some repube organization(s) decided to buy seven or eight? I don't think this is just a SuperBowl policy either.

Secondly, that's just the policy of the big CBS office. Local affliates still can run any ad they want, but it has to be done on the local level where viewership is narrower.

Finally, the drug thing is totally different. It's kinda like a public service announcement. Whether or not you take drugs surely you don't have a problem with telling kids not to do so.

[MisterC2003]

45. The drug thing is not totally different

The current crop of anti-drug ads are government propoganda thinly disguised as public service ads. They seek to link drug use with supporting Al-Qaeda (i.e., terrorism). When the fact of the matter is that drug money contributes very little to terrorism -- it's mostly oil money, duh! The obvious thing here is to legitimate the War On Some Americans via Drugs, a political agenda rather than a public service agenda.

So your argument breaks down here ... CBS is allowing one kind of advocacy ad but not allowing another kind. If they dropped the anti-drug ads they'd be doing right. But as is -- Bzzzzt! Unfair!

[ermoore]

46. Different enough.

The "drugs help terrorism" ads seem to have come and gone. In any case, whatever the main source of terrorist funds (oil money), that drug money does contribute is still a legitimate point (and I suspect that it's more than "very little," at least till Afghanistan's poppy harvest is under better control).

Still though, like CBS says there's not some big group out there that says that it's good for kids to do drugs, so the issue isn't particularly controversial. Secondly, the Drug War (while a failure) has been policy longer than * has been in office and is for the most part supported by both parties.

Finally, it's a good thing for kids (and teens) to be told not to do drugs. We should encourage that (make 'em wait till college).

[Occulus]

52. You're missing the point.

They'll run one issue ad, but not another, due to the political point of view. They do not own the airwaves they broadcast on. We do.

This is a betrayal, almost- but not quote- tantamount to treason. They are subverting the democratic process.

Come on- are you not willing to acknowledge that the superbowl is viewed by a LOT of people?

Let me put it this way: if you are willing to allow them to not run issue ads during the superbowl, you are willing to begin to allow them to not run controversial issue ads AT ALL.

This is a very slippery slope, when a corporation is able to dictate to the public what will and will not happen in a public space.

And yes, the airwaves ARE a public space, held in trust by the broadcasters. As such, they have a responsibility to the public, and by denying MoveOn's ad, they have blatantly and completely betrayed that trust.

I think CBS's broadcast license should be revooked for a month. THAT would teach them their rightful place.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

47. free press- The U.S. just moved down one more notch on that

and we're pretty low already on the list the countries with freedom of the press.

I hope the congress can get this point out loud and clear so that those whose rights are being taken away will know.
It's the right of the viewers to hear and see things that address current affairs especially on days of mass viewing like the superbowl.
That's who loses- the people--not the dems, not moveon-
Since they initially decided to run those Reaganite style war on drugs adds linking drugs to terra they have every obligation to show the other side--that this war on terra is all about MONEY--is it worth it? that is the big question--sure to Halliburton it is and the Carlyle group, Kellog Brown and Root--- all about the power !!

Sure terrorrists exist and they are a threat-
Timothy McVeigh was one American tarrist who did extreme harm.
And there are others. Even more reason that the message of non violence has to get out...The moveon add is non offensive--it states only one fact and no opinions.

people have rights! ...or do they?