HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » U.S. » California (Group) » No on 37 Forced to Pull T...

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 07:18 PM

No on 37 Forced to Pull TV Ad . . .

After Misrepresenting Stanford University

Oakland: In a blistering admission of their own lack of credibility, the opponents of California’s GMO labeling measure yanked down and re-shot their first television ad after they were caught misrepresenting Stanford University in the ad, according to the Los Angeles Times. The ad identified Henry Miller as a doctor at Stanford University, without disclosing that Miller actually serves as a researcher at the Hoover Institute, a right-wing think tank at Stanford.

The ad violated Stanford's policy that prohibits consultants from using the university's name for political purposes. Stanford officials also insisted that the ad be reshot to remove the vaulted university buildings in the background, according to the LA Times. Millions of California voters had already seen the ad which has been running hourly in major television markets across the state.

“The scandal over the Henry Miller ad is proof positive of the lack of credibility and lack of integrity of the No on 37 campaign, which is at this very moment unleashing a $35 million ad campaign of lies on the voters of California,” said Stacy Malkan, spokesperson for the Yes on 37 California Right to Know campaign.


http://www.carighttoknow.org/no_on_37_forced_to_pull_ad

7 replies, 1698 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Le Taz Hot (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 07:27 PM

1. Keep hearing the radio ads those sleazy fucks are putting out, "with major funding by Monsanto"

Which tells you, really, all you need to know

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 07:29 PM

2. I thought there was something bogus about that ad

for that very reason. I remembered an earlier incident where somebody got their ass in a sling for claiming to represent Stanford in a political ad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 11:49 PM

3. That would be the ad that claims "meat for dog food must be labeled, but not meat for humans"?

Caca de toro. There is no such thing (yet ) as GMO meat. Dog food would have to be labeled because of its other ingredients, usually corn or rice. Reshoot it again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #3)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 12:30 AM

4. ohhhh, THAT ad!

I knew it smelled.

Now what will they push the limits on this time?

Sleazy bastards...let them eat their own Frankencorn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 07:10 PM

5. Reality check: Anti-Proposition 37 ad is partially misleading

From the Mercury News.

http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_21715623/reality-check-pro-proposition-37-ad-is-partially

I did notice there's an asterisked disclaimer now attached to the list of spokesbeard Henry Miller's Hoover Institution, Stanford University* credentials.

(*Titles for Identification Purposes Only)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:30 PM

6. For what it's worth

The Chamber of Commerce recommends a "NO" vote on Prop 37.

Progressive Christians Uniting, California Council of Churches, Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry in CA, Friends Committee on Legislation of CA, CA League of Conservation Voters, the League of Women Voters and the CA Labor Federation, AFL-CIO recommend a YES vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 04:47 AM

7. The No ads are so misleading. Like the one where they show dog food vs a steak.

The dog food requires labeling. Um, no kidding. The dog food contains all kinds of crap in it in addition to just plain meat. Corn, grains, etc. Of course it is going to require the labeling.

Why do they want to pretend this is going to cost so much for labeling? There are already requirements for peanuts, dairy, etc.

Yes on 37.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread