CBS Rejects MoveOn Super Bowl ad
 

If you're interested in signing a petition urging CBS to reconsider, you can go here: http://www.moveon.org/cbs/?id=2283-3...MzegwRGZui.CLg

I'm sure most of you have seen the "Child's Pay" ad already, go to bushin30seconds.org to see the ad in question if you haven't.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. When I first read it I thought I agreed with MoveOn that there was some political bias, but then spoke to someone else who said that the network execs don't allow issue ads in the Super Bowl, period. However, the "anti-drug" commercials from the Office of Drug Policy are allowed to run, so perhaps the networks only allow issue ads when they can use them to curry favor with the Administration.

Sign the petition if you want to, but either way I could use some enlightenment on how you feel about CBS's decision and why.

I think the anti-drug ads are probably considered PSAs, so they would be different then an ad sponsered by a political organization.

as much as I agree with the moveon video and message, being a member and all, I don't think politics should be involved in the super bowl... otherwise the richer side gets to attract so many americans. Plus the ad isn't cool enough to go in the superbowl:D However, it might be a good way to have voter education...

Well said zamunda

http://www.moveon.org/news/2278.html

This link better details MoveOn's argument and I think it is valid. The airwaves are publicly owned and the broadcasters receive their spectrum for free in return for their commitment to serve the "public interest."

I DONT agree with MoveOn's position, but I dont believe they should have been banned from the Super Bowl. Other political ads such as anti-smoking/drugs are allowed to run, unless it is offensive I dont believe they should limit any others.

This ad was in no way offensive or disrespectful, and as long as they are willing to dish out the money for the spot they should be allowed. As I said I dont agree with their stance but I dont believe they should be ruled out simply because they dont have the majority of public support atm.

It's a stupid pointless ad. Like Bush is the only president that has contributed to the deficit. Gimme a break. http://www.boomspeed.com/sixate/icon_rolleyes.gif

The ad makes absolutely no sense anyway. Kids won't work. They'll work when they grow up. How is this any different than what the rest of us have done?

The fact that you didn't understand the point doesn't mean it's pointless.

These kids will work when they become adults in about 15-20 years, upon which time they'll still be paying for the spending occurring today.

Two things.

One, CBS pays an obscene amount of money for broadcasting and re-braodcasting rights and licenses from the FCC. Broadcasting is not free. True, anything on the airwaves are free and public domain, but CBS must pay for a frequency to put anything out there first.

Two, CBS, like any business has complete control of their product. Their transmissions are the product they produce. As long as the content is legal, they are free to record and broadcast whatever they feel will make them the most money. If they choose not to air a commercial, that is a business decision and should be thought of as such, CBS has no obligation to the public (they have contracts, as does any company that retransmits a television signa,l to allow the government full use of the system in an emergency) to provide fair access to the general public.

Didn't I already say that?!?!?!
Now explain how that's any different than what you and I have done. We all have to work when we grow up, right? Yes. Aren't we currently paying for past presidents that added to the deficit?

Are you also trying to say that Bush has been the only president who has created the deficit?

I am now convinced that you are NOT drug free. :)

Bingo. CBS is a company. CBS is not run by "The People." CBS can do whatever-the-hell it pleases when it comes to what to air and what not to air. If you don't like it, stop watching CBS.

No, he's just one of the most prolific spenders ever.

Witness this research paper done by the Heritage Foundation, a Washington based conservative think tank (also the most widely cited think tank in the media).
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/BG1710.cfm

Nonsense.
http://www.mediareform.net/issue.php?id=broadcast

What a blow to the smoker/drug user party.

Wanna piss test me.. :p

Although it's a good ad and makes a point, I don't have a problem with a private company not running it.

I don't think there's any legal obligation for CBS to run it; I just don't think it's in the interests of democracy and freedom of thought for ads to be regularly screened on a political basis.

Out of curiousity, if he was a Democrat, would you still be upset about how much he spends? Of course you would! Right?

As for the ad, it is pretty moronic. I'm sure the PETA ad that CBS also refused to air was equally useless.

Yes, I would, but of course, that is beside the point.

I love how everyone keeps ignoring my point:

Aren't we all currently working to pay off the deficit from past presidents/decisions? Is it so bad that when the kids of today grow up they have to do the same as you and I....

Now please explain how this ad isn't retarded. That ad coulda been run 100 years ago, but you aren't bitching about that, are you? Bush is not the only president who has added to the deficit. I dare someone to prove me wrong. It didn't rise to the 7 trillion range by the efforts of one man.

That's because it's off-topic.

The anti-drug ads are not political. They are educational health warnings. However couched they may be in propaganda, they contain no explicit promotion or denouncement of politicians or their agendas. The ideas in the ads may be prepetuated by a particular party, but the ideas are not pointed at a political party or a politician.

Airing an ad such as this one without an ad containing an opposing viewpoint within the same timeslot would be an implicit promotion of the ad's agenda by the network.

Besides, who wants to get political during the Super Bowl? It's like smoking in church.

You still don't get my point. Or you just keep ignoring it...

Sixate...when people keep misunderstanding what you say, there are two possible reasons: Either, they are misunderstanding you because they suck at teh reading, or because you have expressed yourself poorly. If people can't seem to understand your points, try rephrasing them or someting.

Are you trying to say you didn't understand my point either?
Please explain what I said below. That way I know if you understand me. If not. I'll spell it out even better.

68: I wouldn't argue that other presidents have run up deficits - Reagan, for instance. What really nips my biscuits on this joker, though is not that he further ran up an existing deficit, but that he started from a budget that was running a surplus as far as the eye could see and flipped it on its head. Last president to do that must've been FDR, and he had the Great Depression to deal with and a solid mandate to do what it took to end it. Chimp boy had no such mandate - not even a majority of the electorate - and no such extraordinary circumstance. And don't tell me we couldn't fix al-Quaida but good if we didn't get bogged down in Iraq and do it without breaking the bank.

Now, the second part of your argument is more cogent, but still a straw man. Marketing is the art of exaggerating for effect, or are you telling me that I will really grow wings if I drink Red Bull?

Finally, someone understood my point, and I understand yours, but I don't think your gonna grow some wings after you drink some Red Bull. Unless you plan on dropping some acid in it first... :p

Is it just me or are more and more people acting stupid just for the sake of the arguement? Please don't tell me you take every advertisement you see literally sixate. The ad isn't even that crazy, all it says is that the children of today is the ones that needs to handle the big deficit when they grow up. No matter who you try to throw the blame at for the economical situation, the ad still has its points.

also, it is in fact slightly off topic since the issue at hand is the ability of corporations to filter issue ads. Although I guess you could argue that CBS rejected the ad because it was "retarded" rather than because of political bias, but the fact is no matter how good of an ad MoveOn submitted, CBS wouldn't have aired it. Their reasons would be the same, a claim that they don't air issue ads, when in fact government-sponsored ads are fine.

So the value of the commercial itself is not really in question here.

On the subject of "issue" ads, I heard that Pepsi/Apple are going to air an ad featuring kids sued by the RIAA "thanking" pepsi and apple for allowing them to download music legally using iTunes. While it isn't as politically charged as flaming the president, the fact that CBS allows this kind of ad and not the moveon ad seems a little bit hypocritical.

Maybe moveon needs to get a cosponsor! Perhaps all those kids could be munching on Doritos while they work. :) :)

While I think the add is quite silly, and is obviously a ploy for Pepsi to say 'we are so hip, drink it!', I think they should run every moveon add.

Over the top propaganda tends to have the opposite effect. Hell I wish they would run the Hitler ones.

Something tells me if this were an ad from the Right to Life orginization, you guys would have a problem with it. The superbowl would suck ass if every break were filled with adds from political groups trying to "one up" each other. Lord knows there's enough of that.

I would rather have any issue ad than some stoopid ass bud bowl nonsense.

it is a stupid commercial --they act like bush destroyed the economy--hello--we are now in a positive economical growth--

I think I already said this up top, but filtherton and mathew both have legitimate points...
To those of us who love the superbowl, it would be diminished from its glory if we had political ads running all the time

however, if political ads did run, it would be a very easy way to educate voters and project opinions...

most americans probably don't want to be force fed liberal or conservative messages during the superbowl though... its a tough call, and I think CBS is not airing it because they don't want to set this precedent.. and perhaps lose ratings

All that being said, I agree with the ad because people should think about future generations paying off the debt incurred by ALL PRESIDENTS... Bush has done perhaps more than his part in hiking it up, but every presdient contributed and its about time that the current or next president begin turning it around.

Yeah it's not like he spends all the money on tax cuts for the ritch, dodgy warfare and trips to outer space or anyting.

I have no desire to be "educated" during the Super Bowl.

That is my relaxing time.

So thank you very much, CBS!

I think cbs should fire madden and what's his nuts and replace them with the incumbent and the leading opposition candidate. It'd probably be a lot more entertaining than hearing madden constantly remind everybody that it is indeed the reciever's job to catch the ball.

God forbid anyone should ever try to sneak information or opinions into my entertainment.

I'm glad to see we agree.

Now that would be good TV.

Kerry: Oh man! well, Mr. President, the Patriots from the great State of Massachussets really seem to be thumping those inbred, Carolina peckerwoods, wouln't you say?

Bush: Pretzels! I told them chips. Where's Rummy! Get me those chips or I swear to God I'm gonna bomb something!

Kerry: Thank you Mr. President. Let's go to Howard Dean on the Carolina side line.

Dean: Well, they're gonna take the ball, and they're gonna go to the 30. They're gonna go to the 40, the 50, the 40, the 20, and then they're gonna take that ball and ram it into the endzone where it belongs.

YEEEEEEAAAAAARRRRRGH!!!!!!!!
------------------------------

Thank you so much for putting that in my head.

:lol: nice

I was gonna comment on this, but I realized the user is now banned. :lol:

*runs off to see why*

IRONY = liberals removing the pledge of allegiance from public schools to avoid offending, uhh, someone..., removing any reference to religion (christianity) from any public forum for fear of offending, uhh, someone; but insisting on their misguided one-liners being force fed to the american public via the superbowl.

It's not about offending somene so much as keeping clear the separation between Church and State. I'm not saying I agree with or disagree with this perception. But that's pretty much what the deal's about. "Under God" is viewed by the U.S. Court as being an implicit endorsement of Christianity. To further extrapolate an implied denigration of atheism and polytheism is shakier ground.

IRONY= conservatives fighting to force people to recite the pledge of allegiance whether or not they believe in the god it alludes to and attempting to force christianity upon all who enter public buildings by way of the ten commandments; but insisting that no one should be forced to hear something that they don't agree with on superbowl sunday.

About as accurate and rooted in reality as your little rant.:icare:

I'm with you. Run them all day. :lol:

1) Seperation of Church and State is not in the constitution, Wall of seperation was only TALKED about in a letter to the Danbury Baptists

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Whats wrong with mentioning God the creator in the pledge? After all it was through him that all our rights were endowed and on that basis and tradition that our country was founded. Secondly 10 commandments is not solely christian, ignorant people like yourself might not know this but actually it was Jews who established, christians who jumped on the band wagon later with it, and Muslims who hold them as sacred law as well.


****
Back on track, do we really have to politicize EVERYTHING, get serious. The last thing I want to hear or see during the superbowl is any form of political rhetoric Pro or Anti Dubya. I just want to watch stupid low brow humor commercials and the Pats get stomped on by Carolina. Is that to much to ask for?

While I'm with anyone who wants to see the pats crushed, I really don't think this kind of religious arguement is worth having because there are clearly many people who would disagree with the idea that god endowed us with everything. While I myself might believe this, its ridiculous to think everyone else would. Also, the muslims hold the bible (and the 10 commandments therein) to be truth, but a much lesser truth than the Qu'ran, and there are many other religions in the world who's view on the 10 commandments you haven't touched on... actually I just realized, why are we even talking about the 10 commandments when the topic of the thread is moveon and the superbowl?

Yes, and if you want to quote directly, americans should only have the right to bear arms if they are part of a "well regulated militia".


Through him? Give me a break. I guess i was mistaken. I was under the impression that our country was founded on the basis of democracy and the idea of basic human rights and equality. This country does not belong to your god. This country belongs to all of its citizens, even the ones who don't believe in jesus or god.

You throw around the word ignorant like you have no concept of irony. Did you even read what you wrote?
Well, thanks for enlightening me on the existence of judaism. Perhaps now you will let me return the favor by letting you in on a little secret. Not all americans fall into either the christian or jew category. Some don't even believe in god at all. In fact the founding fathers didn't believe in your god. Is that the basis and tradition that you were speaking of? Why should people who don't share your particular belief system have to be exposed to some other religion's propaganda in light of the statistical certainty that a whole lot of conservative christians would throw an absolute hissyfit if some judge dared to have a shrine to buddha in the rotunda of a courthouse? The state and the church shouldn't mix. It never works out well for anyone except the priests and the clerics.

p.s. i'm sorry this is off topic.

Yup, name calling is a good way to get a thread locked.