CBS Rejects MoveOn Super Bowl ad - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

hiredgun · 01-23-2004, 12:51 PM

Quote:

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.

To check out the ad and ask CBS to air ads like this one, go to:
http://www.moveon.org/cbs/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.

djtestudo · 01-23-2004, 12:59 PM

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

Zamunda · 01-23-2004, 01:17 PM

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

However, it might be a good way to have voter education...

tdoc · 01-23-2004, 01:26 PM

Well said zamunda

hammer4all · 01-23-2004, 10:14 PM

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."

Seaver · 01-24-2004, 12:01 AM

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.

sixate · 01-24-2004, 12:36 AM

It's a stupid pointless ad. Like Bush is the only president that has contributed to the deficit. Gimme a break.

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?

smooth · 01-24-2004, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate
It's a stupid pointless ad.

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

Quote:

Kids won't work. They'll work when they grow up. How is this any different than what the rest of us have done?

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.

SuperMidget · 01-24-2004, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hammer4all

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."

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.

sixate · 01-24-2004, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
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.

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?

Nomad · 01-24-2004, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate
It's a stupid pointless ad. Like Bush is the only president that has contributed to the deficit. Gimme a break.

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?

I am now convinced that you are NOT drug free.

SecretMethod70 · 01-24-2004, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SuperMidget
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.

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.

hammer4all · 01-24-2004, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate
It's a stupid pointless ad. Like Bush is the only president that has contributed to the deficit. Gimme a break.

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

Quote:

Originally posted by SuperMidget
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.

Nonsense.

Quote:

While it would not seem obvious from present policy, broadcast spectrum is a publicly owned resource. However, in being granted a license from the Federal Communications Commission, private entities are given, free of charge, monopoly rights to make grandiose profits from this resource. The only stipulation placed upon award of these licenses is that stations must serve the "public interest." Left to their own devices, however, networks have shown time and again that when the public competes with profit, the public loses.

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

European Son · 01-24-2004, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seaver
Other political ads such as anti-smoking/drugs are allowed to run

What a blow to the smoker/drug user party.

sixate · 01-24-2004, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nomad
I am now convinced that you are NOT drug free.

Wanna piss test me..

floydthebarber · 01-24-2004, 08:29 AM

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

hiredgun · 01-24-2004, 10:43 AM

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.

seretogis · 01-24-2004, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hammer4all
No, he's just one of the most prolific spenders ever.

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.

hammer4all · 01-24-2004, 12:47 PM

Quote:

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

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

sixate · 01-24-2004, 05:04 PM

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.

Johnny Rotten · 01-24-2004, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate
I love how everyone keeps ignoring my point:

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.

sixate · 01-25-2004, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Johnny Rotten
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...

European Son · 01-25-2004, 06:47 AM

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.

sixate · 01-25-2004, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by European Son
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.

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate
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.

Tophat665 · 01-25-2004, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate
It's a stupid pointless ad. Like Bush is the only president that has contributed to the deficit. Gimme a break.

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?

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?

sixate · 01-25-2004, 08:09 AM

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...

European Son · 01-25-2004, 08:12 AM

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.

hiredgun · 01-25-2004, 10:14 AM

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.

HarmlessRabbit · 01-25-2004, 10:39 AM

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.

Ustwo · 01-25-2004, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
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.

matthew330 · 01-26-2004, 09:19 AM

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.

filtherton · 01-26-2004, 09:28 AM

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

wipeout · 01-26-2004, 01:21 PM

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

Zamunda · 01-26-2004, 02:15 PM

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.

European Son · 01-26-2004, 02:36 PM

Quote:

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

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.

Lebell · 01-26-2004, 03:07 PM

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

That is my relaxing time.

So thank you very much, CBS!

filtherton · 01-26-2004, 03:41 PM

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.

European Son · 01-26-2004, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
I have no desire to be "educated" during the Super Bowl.
That is my relaxing time.
So thank you very much, CBS!

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

Lebell · 01-26-2004, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by European Son
God forbid anyone should ever try to sneak information or opinions into my entertainment.

I'm glad to see we agree.

Ustwo · 01-26-2004, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
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.

Now that would be good TV.

01-23-2004, 12:59 PM	#2 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	I think the anti-drug ads are probably considered PSAs, so they would be different then an ad sponsered by a political organization. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

01-24-2004, 08:29 AM	#16 (permalink)
floydthebarber Insane Location: ?	Although it's a good ad and makes a point, I don't have a problem with a private company not running it. __________________ wish you were here

01-26-2004, 01:21 PM	#33 (permalink)
wipeout Crazy Location: Los BIOS	it is a stupid commercial --they act like bush destroyed the economy--hello--we are now in a positive economical growth-- __________________ My memories are of fun and friendship, Of weakness within the strength of youth...

01-26-2004, 03:07 PM	#36 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I have no desire to be "educated" during the Super Bowl. That is my relaxing time. So thank you very much, CBS! __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-23-2004, 01:17 PM	#3 (permalink)
Zamunda Tilted	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 However, it might be a good way to have voter education...

01-23-2004, 01:26 PM	#4 (permalink)
tdoc Tilted	Well said zamunda

01-23-2004, 10:14 PM	#5 (permalink)
hammer4all Insane	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."

01-24-2004, 12:01 AM	#6 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	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.

01-24-2004, 12:36 AM	#7 (permalink)
sixate Registered User Location: Somewhere in Ohio	It's a stupid pointless ad. Like Bush is the only president that has contributed to the deficit. Gimme a break. 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?

01-24-2004, 10:43 AM	#17 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	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.

01-24-2004, 05:04 PM	#20 (permalink)
sixate Registered User Location: Somewhere in Ohio	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.

01-25-2004, 06:47 AM	#23 (permalink)
European Son Banned Location: Norway	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.

01-25-2004, 08:09 AM	#26 (permalink)
sixate Registered User Location: Somewhere in Ohio	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...

01-25-2004, 08:12 AM	#27 (permalink)
European Son Banned Location: Norway	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.

01-25-2004, 10:14 AM	#28 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	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.

01-25-2004, 10:39 AM	#29 (permalink)
HarmlessRabbit Junkie Location: San Jose, CA	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.

01-26-2004, 09:19 AM	#31 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	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.

01-26-2004, 09:28 AM	#32 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I would rather have any issue ad than some stoopid ass bud bowl nonsense.

01-26-2004, 02:15 PM	#34 (permalink)
Zamunda Tilted	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.

01-26-2004, 03:41 PM	#37 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	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.