In an unpublicized, media-free, non-ceremony, President Bush secretly signed a bill intended to bring an end to much of the secrecy that has surrounded this administration. The OPEN Government Act was passed by Congress with overwhelming majorities. But that was only after it had been blocked for months by a secret “hold” that was placed on it by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who was acting on behalf of Bush and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
The OPEN Government Act is a positive step forward, enhancing the 41 year old Freedom of Information Act. Among other things, the Act will…
require the release of requested documents unless their disclosure would do actual harm
bring government contractors under FOIA
compel the government to respond to FOIA requests within 20 days of their receipt
create a system by which citizens may track the progress of their requests
establish a hot-line service for all federal agencies to cope with problems
establish an ombudsman to help resolve disputes about non-disclosure
In addition it codifies the definition of a “representative of the news media” as…
“…any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience. In this clause, the term `news’ means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public.”
That is an admirably broad definition that would include much of the blogging and alternative media communities. With these changes the public has a much better chance of gaining access to documents that were produced in their name, and with their tax dollars. And there is a much higher likelihood that government agencies will be foiled in their attempts to keep vital information from being made public.
Update: Well, it only took 3 weeks for BushCo to pervert the intent of Congress and the just passed OPEN Government Act. The administration is attempting to shift the funding for the Act to the Department of Justice which has no facility to perform the duties enumerated by the Act, thus killing it. The matter is not, however, concluded as the bill’s authors will oppose this subterfuge and insist that the National Archives retain jurisdiction. Stay tuned.
The ongoing strike by members of the Writer’s Guild against the AMPTP is an important line in the sand for rights of the creative community in Hollywood and elsewhere. The producers have thus far proven that they are far more interested in hording their profits than in sharing credit and compensation with the people most responsible for generating those profits – the creators. But there has been an unanticipated drawback to this otherwise righteous cause that could have a significant impact on our nation.
A month from now the first of the presidential primary contests will take place in Iowa. The campaigns are already at cruising speed and the media is hurtling forward with their usual fare of speculation, conflict and the inane horserace chatter that they think passes for news. What’s missing is the perspective of what has become the most insightful segment of the commentator class in the 21st century – Satire.
While news programs continue spewing their corporatist, insider views of presidential politics throughout the strike, programs like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, David Letterman, Saturday Night Live, etc., have become silent. This is not a trivial matter. Many of these programs have assumed a unique role in our culture by highlighting the absurd quirks and contradictions of our politicians and press. The light these programs shine on the political landscape is nowhere countervailed in the dimwitted din of the so-called Mainstream Media.
Numerous studies have concluded that programs like The Daily Show are much more than comic relief. They have been shown to contain as much news content as the news programs they lampoon. They are a top source of news for young viewers/voters. They are a staple in the media diet for information about our nation and our world. Two years ago I wrote “The Real Fake News” to juxtapose the legitimacy of the Daily Show as compared to the pretenders in the “serious” press:
“While esteem for the media is spiraling ever-lower, respect for The Daily Show continues to grow. It receives awards for both its humor and its news content. And it performs the function of a media watchdog, alerting us to the hypocrisy, collaboration, and contrivance of the corporate-dominated media.”
For these reasons they should be allowed to continue in production along with the rest of television news programming. The absence of the perspective of The Daily Show could have a measurable effect on public opinion including the presidential race. In just one month since the strike began, there have been stories and events that would have been covered by TDS in a manner that no other outlet would have the courage to get near. Imagine, for instance, Jon Stewart’s take on Rudy Giuliani’s “Tryst Fund” affair; or the CNN/YouTube Republican debate; or the Hillary campaign office hostage crisis; or Bill O’Reilly’s book tour to Afghanistan; or the WGA strike itself. By approaching the news from angles that the straight press ignores, TDS and its peers bring out issues that would otherwise be missed or would fall from the radar before their ramifications could be fully explored.
I believe that our country is being ill-served by shutting down The Daily Show. But there is something that can be done. Because TDS can be plausibly categorized as a news program, it can be given special status with regard to the strike. The union could grant it a waiver to allow it to remain in production. Or better yet, the union could negotiate with the production company on an individual basis. This has been done in previous labor disputes. The production company can agree to terms with the union that can later be aligned with the terms that are spelled out in the final contract. In fact, by negotiating with individual production companies, the union can place tremendous pressure on the companies that do not negotiate, as well as on the AMPTP. It is a tactic that effectively divides to conquer. How long could the AMPTP hold out while their members are signing contracts independent of the Alliance?
I am calling on the WGA to enter into negotiations with TDS, its producers, and/or Comedy Central. It’s time to restore this national resource to the airwaves. The strike could drag on for many months and the loss to our social psyche is too great to rest on the potential for the warring factions to reach a settlement. The tenor of our times is too tense to leave to the addle-brained punditry of CNN, Fox, et al. What’s coming round the bend of civic life in America needs to be reviewed and regurgitated by the creative minds that gave us Mess O’Potamia and ClusterF@$k To The White House.
Any WGA members reading this are encouraged to contact your union reps and push for this solution. It can’t hurt the union (it might help), but not doing so can hurt the country. So please…stop hurting America.
UPDATE: From some comments I’ve received, it is apparent that I need to clarify my position. I am TOTALLY in support of the writer’s strike and their mission to fairly compensate their members and all creative workers. What I am proposing here would ONLY be implemented if those negotiating individually got the terms that the Guild is now demanding (at the least). The theory is that if the Guild can peel off members of the AMPTP who will agree to the Guild’s terms, then the AMPTP is weakened as their alliance falls apart. This tactic has been used in the past by and for the benefit of the union. Both the WGA and the DGA have used it successfully. Perhaps in today’s marketplace, with increasing consolidation and vertical integration, this tactic may not be as effective, but I think it is worth exploring.
I really do think that the absence of TDS and its peers has a measurably negative impact on public discourse. And these types of programs are the most effective media watchdogs around as they put the media in a critical light that no one else does – at least no one with their reach (I do it, of course, but I think TDS gets more viewers than me).
“So it’s interesting that, today, WGA prez Patric Verrone began calling on the more moderate CEOs to break ranks with AMPTP which he claimed is “allowing bottom-line hard-liners to rule the day.” I’ve heard top WGA’ers privately refer to this as the “Let’s Make A Deal” strategy. But it hasn’t been articulated in public until now. “If any of these companies want to come forward and bargain with us individually, we think we can make a deal,” Verrone told AP while conferring with picketing writers at NBC in Burbank.”
A couple of days ago Bill O’Reilly again demonstrated his aversion to free expression as well as his penchant for dishonesty. An op-ed that appeared in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (a paper that O’Reilly regularly castigates as “far-left loons”) laid out a case for Impeachment: If not now, when? The column was accompanied by a political cartoon that had Bush and Cheney dressed up for their mugshots.
That was more than enough to set O’Reilly off on a rant that amounted to a call for censorship (YouTube):
“Look at this. This is ridiculous […] It’s based on nothing […] I want you to excoriate them. Let them have it […] It’s wrong though for them to do it. Don’t you think that showing a mug shot of a sitting president, a sitting vice president is irresponsible?”
O’Reilly is outraged that anyone would exercise their First Amendment rights to express an opinion about the criminality of this administration. He believes that such open expression “diminishes intelligent conversation,” (as if O’Reilly ever engaged in one) and his response is to shut down conversation entirely. Note that O’Reilly is complaining about the cartoon, not the content of the article. Although he does say that the cartoon is “based on nothing,” despite the fact that it is attached to a well-documented column that enumerates specific justifications for investigating the President and his administration.
After once again calling the paper “loons,” (an example of his idea of “intelligent conversation”) O’Reilly attacks the paper’s credibility by smugly declaring that it has lost 40% of its readers in the past ten years:
“Almost half of their readers have said ‘We don’t like you anymore, we’re not going to read you.'”
What O’Reilly leaves out is any actual context that would enlighten his viewers. The truth is that almost all major newspapers have suffered sharp declines in circulation over the past ten years. But more to the point, in only two years (Sept 2005 to Sept 2007) Bill O’Reilly himself has lost 33% of his total viewers and a whopping 59% of viewers in the all-important 25-54 age group. That’s more than half of his viewers saying, “We don’t like you anymore, we’re not going to watch you.”
This brief exchange reveals much about O’Reilly. It shows that while he is vociferously objecting to the free speech rights of others, he will use his own platform to misinform his viewers. No wonder they don’t like him anymore.
Posted by Mark NC on October 4, 2007 at 12:32 pm.
NOComments :
Radio giant Clear Channel Communications is refusing to air an ad by VoteVets, a veterans group protesting Rush Limbaugh’s recent assertion that vets who oppose the war in Iraq are “phony soldiers.”
VoteVets received a letter explaining that the ad would not run because:
“Airing anti-Rush Limbaugh ads during the Rush Limbaugh Show on WJNO would only conflict with the listeners that have chosen to listen to Rush Limbaugh.”
Once again, Clear Channel has taken it upon itself to stifle public debate and restrict the free flow of information. In refusing to air this ad, they are stepping on the free speech rights of the veteran activists at VoteVets. Clear Channel’s offer to air the ad at other times or on other stations denies VoteVets the opportunity to counter Limbaugh’s rantings in context. They fail to recognize the importance of directing the response to the audience that was subjected to Limbaugh’s insulting diatribes in the first place. And Clear Channel also makes the mistake of assuming that there aren’t any listeners who disagree with Limbaugh.
Clear Channel’s justification of their censorship on the grounds that it would create conflict is beyond absurd. This is the Rush Limbaugh Show we’re talking about. Conflict is part and parcel of the program’s mission. If Clear Channel is concerned about conflict, why do they let Limbaugh air audio of Democrats for the explicit purpose of denigrating them and thus, creating conflict? Why do they allow Limbaugh to take phone calls that have the potential to produce further conflict? Why do they let Limbaugh express any opinion at all at the risk of creating conflict wiht the many listeners who do not share his views?
To its credit, WJNO has a fairly balance schedule. Their weekday roster presents Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz, and Sean Hannity. The problem is that Rhodes and Schultz are likely to address the VoteVets matter on their own. It’s the Limbaugh audience that most needs exposure to contrary arguments. I would have no objection to the GOP front group, Vets For Freedom, running ads on Schultz’s show. But I assume that Clear Channel would also think that that’s a bad idea too. What are they afraid of?
VoteVets is an advocacy group that supports soldiers and veterans. Unlike Rush Limbaugh, they fought for the rights enumerated in the Constitution, including free speech. But that right is being denied to them today.
You can call Clear Channel in Palm Beach at 561-616-6600 and tell them to air the VoteVets ad. Tell them that our veterans deserve the right to heard. Tell them that, as a listener, you don’t necessarily agree with everything (or anything) Limbaugh says. Tell them that you’re capable of enduring whatever conflict such an ad subjects you to. But what you are not capable of enduring is a giant media corporation infringing on the rights of citizens.
UPDATE: On his show today, Rush suggested that VoteVets run their ad on his program. Either he’s not talking to his ad sales people, or they’re not listening to his show.
Last week the U.S. Senate voted to condemn the New York Times for running an ad that was critical of the administration and it’s lackey, Gen. David Petraeus. The inevitable consequences of this government imposition of approved thought are already becoming manifest.
The Times itself is slamming its ad sales group for accepting the ad from MoveOn.org and offering them a rate reserved for stand-by advertisers. Public Editor Clark Hoyt enumerated the list of grievances from opponents of the ad. They include:
More than 4,000 e-mail messages with words like “despicable,” “disgrace” and “treason.”
George W. Bush called the ad “disgusting.”
Dick Cheney said the charges in the ad were “an outrage.”
Thomas Davis III, (R-VA) demanded a House investigation.
The American Conservative Union filed a complaint with the FEC against MoveOn.org and the Times.
FreedomsWatch asked the Times to investigate.
And what did this flurry of hard-core conservative pressure yield? Well, the so-called liberal Times caved in to the rightists and proved the effectiveness of shouting down lawful dissent. Hoyt argued that the Times violated it’s advertising policy which states that they, “do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.” But criticizing Petraeus’ intention to go before Congress and parrot the views of the White House is not a personal attack. It is a substantive expression of a viewpoint that is shared by millions of Americans. What’s more, Hoyt didn’t bother to level the same complaint against rebuttal ads by Rudy Giuliani or FreedomsWatch. Hoyt went even further in defining the lengths to which he would go to muzzle free speech saying…
“…I’d have demanded changes to eliminate ‘Betray Us,’ a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier.”
Had Hoyt been in a position to do so, he would have forced a private advocacy group to alter the message they wished to convey. And as justification, he implies that a general, who is being used as a political prop by the White House, cannot be called to account for abandoning the American people in favor of his boss, the President. Submission accomplished, Mr. Hoyt.
Another example of the fallout from this campaign of suppression is the refusal of the New York Metro to run an ad from the anti-war group, World Can’t Wait. The Metro deemed the ad “too inflammatory” for its criticism of Bush’s thinly veiled threats against Iran. WCW has a right to be disturbed by this rejection and they succinctly explain what’s at stake for our nation’s coveted rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution:
“One of the few avenues to get the truth into the major media – buying advocacy ads – will be in effect closed down if publishers are afraid to sell space. The White House will be the strong-arm arbiter of what is acceptable in terms of political criticism.”
(Visit World Can’t Wait for more info about the ad and how to contact the Metro).
The dominoes are falling. It began with an orchestrated assault on free speech by right-wingers in response to MoveOn’s ad. Then the Senate capitulates and condemns said speech. Then newspapers, feeling the heat, reject ads by independent groups of citizens seeking to engage the public. What’s next? An Official Doctrine of Acceptable Speech?
Finally, MoveOn responded to the Times’ assertion that the stand-by rate they were charged was a mistake by volunteering to pay the $77,508 difference. Will MoveOn’s critics, who so vociferously complained about the discount, acknowledge that gesture? Will Rudy Giuliani and FreedomsWatch, two of the most clamorous complainants, who themselves received an equivalent discount, pay back the difference they were afforded? If they do not, they should hear about it, and since the Conventional Media probably won’t do it, it’s up to the blogosphere, again.
Update: Lane Hudson at News For The Left has filed a complaint with the FEC against Giuliani. Good luck Lane.
Also, Giuliani is refusing to pay the difference between the stand-by rate he received and the full rate, as MoveOn did. His spokeswoman said that the ad “was placed at the standby rate with no commitment it would run on a specific date.” But she is contradicting her boss who you can listen to here for yourself.
Posted by Mark NC on September 20, 2007 at 12:50 pm.
2Comments :
The MoveOn ad affair is still plodding forward with the President’s comments this morning calling the ad “disgusting”, and now the Senate weighing in with a resolution condemning MoveOn for exercising its free speech rights. The bill’s author, Sen. John Cornyn, made explicitly anti-speech language in his statement supporting the bill.
Before anyone has an opportunity to get distracted, this is not about the war in Iraq; it is not about respect for the military; it is not about terrorism; it is certainly not about patriotism. It is about Free Speech and nothing else (well, maybe a little hypocrisy). It is about the United States Senate deciding that it can penalize private citizens and groups for expressing their opinions.
Despite the chilling effect legislation like this has on lawful dissent, the Senate overwhelmingly passed Cornyn’s bill by a vote of 72-25. That majority means that a lot of Democrats caved in to the “shut up and pretend to support the military” crowd. It means that they believe that it’s acceptable for the government to crush dissent.
And while they are trashing our Constitutional liberties, they don’t even feel compelled to maintain a semblance of consistency. As evidence of the hypocrisy of the Senate censors, Sen. Barbara Boxer offered a companion bill that condemned political attacks on any military figure. Boxer’s alternative included patriots like Max Cleland and John Kerry, in addition to General Petraeus. The Boxer bill failed 51-46 (short of the 60 votes needed for passage), with all but three Republicans voting against it.
It’s bad enough that so many Democrats voted to censure MoveOn rather than exhibit some backbone by standing up for the Constitution as well as their constituents, but it’s far worse that Republicans, it seems, are only interested in defending the honor of the military when those criticized are right-wing sycophants. Decorated veterans who serve their country are apparently unworthy of respect if they don’t swallow Republican dogma and obey their masters in the White House.
I really don’t understand how the public can tolerate Republican senators who will vote to condemn attacks on one general, then turn around and vote against condemning such attacks on all military figures. This should serve as a lesson to the Democratic leadership in Congress that Republicans are not the least bit interested in bipartisanship or compromise. Democratic leader Harry Reid needs to absorb this lesson and begin to take a more aggressive stance in asserting the majority role in which he serves. When is he going to get tired of wiping the footprints off his damn forehead? And the rest of the Democratic caucus might want to start to take more seriously their obligation to protect free speech, as opposed to making vacant gestures that feign patriotism. Their record of abandoning Constitutional principles is disgraceful – from Habeas Corpus, to warrantless wiretapping, to relinquishing their jurisdiction on issues of national defense, to impeachment. When will they learn what their role is as members of an equal branch of government?
“The U.S. Senate just told you to sit down and be quiet. They passed a resolution condemning MoveOn.org and it has one purpose: to intimidate all of us who care about responsibly ending this war.”
Sign the petition and join MoveOn. What better time to show support for free speech and a valiant organization that is fighting for it.
In accepting her Emmy award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series for her role as the matriarch in “Brothers and Sisters”, Sally Field delivered an impassioned tribute to mothers everywhere in a message that spoke of world peace.
Unfortunately, it was too much for the censors at Fox who cut Field’s comments at a critical point.
The video above is from the Canadian broadcast that aired the speech unedited. The nannies at Fox snipped the remarks for U.S. viewers as Field said, “If mothers ruled the world, there wouldn’t be any…” The expunged ending of the sentence was, “god-damned wars in the first place.” Was it because Fox thinks that Americans are just too fragile to be exposed to such fiery language? Was it because they were seeking to suppress legitimate dissent in a public forum? Tom O’Neil at the Los Angeles Times reports that it may not have been a matter of shielding the network from liability for broadcasting an obscenity:
“Technically, Field’s censored words are not profane. A 2004 FCC ruling specifically stated no objection to the use of “god damn” on TV when making a judgment on the uproar over Bono swearing at the Golden Globes in 2003 where he used more colorful language.”
Backstage, Field spoke with reporters and responded to the controversy that was already swirling:
“I have no comment other than, ‘Oh, well.’ I said what I wanted to say. I wanted to pay homage to the mothers of the world. And I very, very seriously think that if mothers ruled the world we wouldn’t be sending our children off to be slaughtered.” […] “If they bleep it, oh, well. I’ll just say it somewhere else.”
This is the second instance of Emmy censorship this season, following Kathy Griffin’s remarks a night earlier when, mocking award winners who give credit to God for their victory, Griffin said that, “…no one had less to do with this award than Jesus.” Isn’t it interesting that in both occurrences of a clampdown on free speech, a reference to God was a key factor?
The debate over whether Fox News is a legitimate news enterprise has seized many in the press and academia. But the transparently partisan presentation in their reporting should make for a short and dull debate. Now, an uncharacteristically honest depiction of Fox News can found in an unlikely place.
TV Guide publishes the industry’s most widely read magazine of program listings and this is how they categorize news programming for their readers:
Note that according to the legend on the top right of the page, the purple highlighting designates a program as “news”. Then, scanning down to the listings, you will see that TV Guide does not consider The O’Reilly Factor to be a news program. However, glancing down a little further reveals that TV Guide does view Keith Olbermann’s Countdown as news. Dig even further than that and you’ll see that the entire Fox News schedule is not designated as news with the exception of Studio B with Shepard Smith. Even Special Report, the program anchored by Brit Hume, Fox News’ managing editor and chief Washington correspondent, is apparently not really news. On MSNBC, Countdown and MSNBC Live are the only programs tagged as news. But CNN’s entire broadcast day is identified as news except for Lou Dobbs and Larry King. (Source: TV Guide September 17-23, 2007)
Now, on a cursory level, that may just appear to be an obvious and objective evaluation of the content on these networks. CNN has always been a dedicated news programmer, just as Fox has always been a propaganda vehicle for the Republican National Committee. But there may be something more to this than just the labeling of program content.
Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc., the publisher of TV Guide, is owned by … wait for it … Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. Murdoch sits on its Board of Directors along with News Corp. president and COO, Peter Chernin. The Board is chaired by Anthea Disney, a News Corp executive VP. So why would Murdoch’s own publication seemingly disparage the cable network he is working so hard to establish as a source of reputable journalism by declining to identify it as news? Could it have something to do with the fact that news programming routinely under-performs entertainment programming and that intentionally mislabeling Fox broadcasts could result in driving more viewers to their network? By extension, they could also be attempting to suppress viewers for their main competition, Countdown, by coloring it purple and diverting the broader interest entertainment viewers away from the program.
By owning both the networks and the publications covering them, News Corp. can circle the PR wagons around itself and effectively manipulate viewers, coverage, and potentially, ratings. TV Guide presently has almost 3.3 million subscribers. Although that is a 12% decline from the previous measurement period, it is still a significant audience. They also operate electronic TV Guides on cable, satellite, and the Internet, that expose them to another 82 million viewers. That reach allows them to define the market in ways that accrue to their own benefit. For example, look at how TV Guide describes the O’Reilly/Olbermann match-up:
The Factor:The bestselling author mixes news, interviews and analyses, and some of his most passionate commentaries, not surprisingly, deal with liberals (such as, to pick one name at random, Al Franken). The conservative guru’s `No Spin Zone’ has been the major factor in Fox News’ climb (past CNN) to the top of the cable-news chart, with some three million viewers nightly.
Countdown:The nightly news program ranks the day’s top five stories by what will likely be the next morning’s hottest topics for discussion. `It’s a hard-news broadcast produced and hosted by people who are uncontrollably silly,’ quips the wry Olbermann, who also conducts newsmaker interviews.
In short, The Factor is the number one show hosted by a popular and passionate bestselling author, while Countdown is a hard-news broadcast that is also regarded as “silly.”
This state of affairs is just another reason for rolling back the consolidation that has occurred in the media since the abominably irresponsible Communications Act of 1996 (thanks Bill Clinton). But in the short term, Murdoch and TV Guide need to be called to account for their abject dishonesty and their efforts to deceive the public.
Posted by Mark NC on August 29, 2007 at 1:31 pm.
NOComments :
John Hinderaker at the Power Line blog is expressing some selective outrage over the alleged refusal of MSNBC and CNBC to air ads by a pro-war shadow press office for the White House. Led by former Bush press secretary, Ari Fleischer, Freedom’s Watch is seeking to target congressional members who aren’t sufficiently hawkish by placing ads that ask viewers to call their representatives and voice their support for the President and the war.
Hinderaker has republished a letter from Bradley Blakeman at Freedom’s Watch (FW) to NBC that says in part…
Your history of airing other issue advocacy advertisements makes the denial of FW advertisements troubling and raises the issue of whether your denial is based on an editorial disagreement with FW’s message.
NBC has yet to respond to the complaint so it is unknown at this time what their reasons for declining the ad might be, if in fact it was declined. However, both Hinderaker and Blakeman should be commended for their commitment to free speech. The only problem is that there is scant evidence that they exhibited similar concern for liberal victims of censorship on the commercial airwaves. Did they ever speak out against these abuses:
NBC, CBS, ABC Reject Ad Criticizing Their News Coverage American Progress created a television advertisement for BeAWitness.org, our netroots campaign that calls out the television news media for their deplorable coverage of the genocide in Darfur. Over the last few days, three Washington DC television affiliates, NBC-4, CBS-9, and ABC-7, informed us that they refuse to air the ad.
Prickly Peacock Nixes Chicks The Weinstein Co. is claiming that NBC and the CW have refused to air national ads for the new Dixie Chicks docu “Shut Up & Sing.”
CBS, NBC Refuse to air Church’s Television Advertisement The CBS and NBC television networks are refusing to run a
30-second television ad from the United Church of Christ because its
all-inclusive welcome has been deemed “too controversial.”
CNN, NPR Refuse Ads for Assassination Film Two major U.S. news outlets, CNN and National Public Radio, will not air advertisements for a controversial movie depicting the assassination of President Bush, citing the film’s content, network spokeswomen said Tuesday.
Bush Helps CBS, CBS Helps Bush While advertising industry sources say CBS will air a pair of advocacy commercials prepared to advance the agenda of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, the network has refused to accept an advertisement prepared by critics of the man who currently occupies the White House.
When Might Turns Right L.A. Weekly has learned that CBS, NBC and ABC all refused Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD advertising during any of the networks’ news programming. Executives at Sony Pictures, the distributor of the movie for the home-entertainment market, were stunned. And even more shocked when the three networks explained why. “They said explicitly they were reluctant because of the closeness of the release to the election.”
Networks Refuse To Air Soldier Ad Now a non-partisan, pro-soldier activist group is having trouble getting an ad featuring a wounded soldier on the air. Operation Truth executive director Paul Rieckhoff told GNN, “the bottom-line is there are some networks who don’t want to hear the truth because the truth is a little too abrasive for people to handle.”
Fox and CBS Refuse To Air Condom Ads …Fox and CBS networks recently refused to broadcast condom advertisements. Had they somehow missed the memo that there are 19 million new cases of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) each year…
To the hypocrites on the right, free speech is reserved for the narrow constituency of the elite and the sycophants of the powerful. To any objective observer it is obvious that the media has an historical pattern of tipping the scales against progressive views. And this applies to news content as well as to advertising.
I generally lean heavily in favor of unfiltered and unfettered expression, but FW’s croc tears just don’t make me misty. I would be a little more sympathetic to FW’s complaint had anyone connected to it ever lifted a finger in support of free speech in any context other than that which is in their own interest.
It would also help if the ad in question weren’t so deceptive. At the end of ad there is a telephone number displayed for viewers to call Congress and express their opinion. But in a perverse game of bait and switch, the number actually connects to an operator who asks if you agree with the ad. If you do, your call is patched through. If you do not, they hang up on you. I would not be surprised if that is the reason NBC hung up on FW.
Posted by Mark NC on August 23, 2007 at 2:05 pm.
NOComments :
Bill O’Reilly’s Trespassing Producer
A Hillsborough sheriff’s deputy issued trespass warnings to O’Reilly Factor producer Jesse Watters, and staff Brian Lyle and Colin Kelly, when they tried to ambush interview Circuit Judge Manuel Lopez. O’Reilly aired Watters harassing the judge but failed to broadcast any of the encounter with the sheriff.
Non-Freedom of Information Act
In a motion filed yesterday, Justice Department lawyers argued that the Office of Administration is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Their reasoning: the office is not an “agency,” by the definition of FOIA. This contradicts the White House’s own web site that says the Office of Administration is subject to FOIA. But it affirms the White House’s commitment to excessive secrecy.
Censorship at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Department administrator, Nicole R. Nason, has adopted a policy that has blocked virtually all of her staff – including the communications office – from providing any information to reporters on the record, which means that it can’t be attributed. What are they trying to hide? Nason, a Bush appointee, must be making her secrecy obsessed boss very happy.
Fox/CBC Democratic presidential debate “postponed”
Fox News and a black political group say they will not hold a Sept. 23 Democratic presidential debate in Detroit, which the leading candidates already were planning to skip. Right, and I canceled my date with Angelina Jolie.
The Road to War: Iraq
On August 27, the National Geographic Channel will air a documentary on the events that led up to the invasion of Iraq. NGC is majority-owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. I don’t want to prejudge this film, but it seems to be populated with interviews of a bunch of Bushies like Andy Card, Richard Armitage, and Mary Matalin. We’ll see where it goes.
A couple of days ago Bill O’Reilly again demonstrated his aversion to free expression as well as his penchant for dishonesty. An op-ed that appeared in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (a paper that O’Reilly regularly castigates as “far-left loons”) laid out a case for 
Finally, 
The MoveOn ad affair is still 
