What if Fox outlets and Clear Channel and others reject Dem ads?

[AlinPA]

Raising $ for TV and radio won't do much good with media shutting us out.

[morgan2]

1. question

is CBS refusing moveon's ad just for the superbowl, or is it they won't accept it at all?

[AlinPA]

4. My understanding it is rejected - no situations where it will run.

[Cleita]

5. I saw it played on CNN several times.

So not everyone is rejecting ads.

[AlinPA]

7. Was it part of a "report" (Wolf Blitzer, Inside Politics, etc)

or a regular "commercial?

[BeatleBoot]

2. Then we get out from behind our computers

and start knocking on our neighbors doors and speaking with them.

I know its old fashion, but its effective!

[AlinPA]

6. In the end, we will win door to door, one on one.

[BeatleBoot]

15. Sounds like you've done this before

Like me. (Many times)

Bless you.

[AlinPA]

22. I know I sound like a "broken record" (shows my age)..

but this year we need to get active. Don't depend on TV, radio or newspapers.

[mlawson]

3. I don't believe they can.

Isn't there something called a 'Fairness Doctrine' for media??? Yeah, as unreal as that sounds....

[AlinPA]

9. Fairness like on Fox "News".

[mlawson]

17. I know. But I seem to remember that there is an FCC rule

about this. Ads from 'major' parties have to be shown.

[Toots]

26. Used to be

Guess who had it repealed?

[2Sailsgirls]

8. i bet you...

...that the media will still be called the liberal media

[baby_bear]

10. No more Fairness Doctrine (since Reagan days)

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

<snip>

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.
...
By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.
...
Currently...there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue.

</snip>

There's more, but you get the point. We're at the mercy of the broadcasters. And if the broadcasters are in the pockets of the Republicans (or the other way around), well, that's one more reason to make sure that Democrats are back in control of Congress and the White House ASAP.

s_m

[AlinPA]

12. Thank you for taking the time to reply.

We really do have a problem.

[tritsofme]

11. They won't

above all, their god is the Almighty Dollar.

[frank frankly]

13. wow, if they don't ban them, the freepers will go krazy

awesome.

but if they ban them--well, that's why they invented paint ball contraptions. both companies own most of the billboards...

;-)

[frank frankly]

14. wow, if they don't ban them, the freepers will go krazy

awesome.

but if they ban them--well, that's why they invented paint ball contraptions. both companies own most of the billboards...

;-)

[Eric J in MN]

16. If you are referring to official campaign ads, I don't think they can.

If you are referring to official campaign ads, I don't think they can.

If you are referring to other MoveOn ads, they might.

[AlinPA]

19. The former. What's to stop them?

[number6]

18. will Democrats wake up and bust the media monopoly ..?

open up a can of whoop ass on the media whores ..?
I freaking hope so ..........:grr:

[dweller]

20. dusting the cobwebs

didn't this happen in 2000 mid-terms? Dem ads not shown as too contraversial?

dp

[Lone_Wolf]

21. If they do that, then start a whisper campaign against them

Something like "--- News is Satan's news channel. People become agents of Satan by watching it." might be effective (and probably is not too far from the truth) against the fanatical religious base of the Right wingnuts.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

23. They will reject ads paid for and produced by grassroots groups

If we have the cover of the Democratic party, or some establishment lobbyist or nonprofit group, they will take money and air the ads.

I think MoveOn is too (small d) democratic, too grassroots, and the organizational model works too well for the corporations to allow it.

These new grassroots organizations hooked together by email and the internet might be able to effectively keep the corporations in check though... This is not over. Perhaps we will televise the revolution ourselves?

[CalebHayes]

24. Reminds me of the CBS Moveon deal

I don't know why they have to be assholes

[TreasonousBastard]

25. Don't spend time inventing problems.

One ad from one source got rejected during primary season. This isn't the first time advocacy ads have been rejected, and certainly won't be the last.

It's not the end of the world, and the media buyers in the party and the PACs are prety well up on things.

No way in hell could ANY major media outlet refuse ads without a damn good reason. They owe their souls to regulators in DC, and they have no intention of seriously pissing anyone with any clout.

Even local outlets don't want to be accused of being obviously one-sided. Even if they are.

[KamaAina]

27. There are regulations governing candidate ads

not related to the Fairness Doctrine.

Basically, a broadcast outlet has two options regarding candidate ads in a specific race:

1) Accept any and all ads from all qualified candidates on an equal basis.

2) Tell any and all candidates, "Sorry, but we aren't accepting any ads in the (Presidential/school board/dogcatcher) race."

What I am NOT sure about is what would happen if Faux et al. declared DNC ads to be "too controversial". Remember, under McCain-Feingold, you're going to see a lot more of these "issue advocacy" ads and fewer "hard money" offical candidate ads.

Could THIS have been why the 'Pukes didn't fight McCain-Feingold tooth and nail?!