FOX refuses to air ad denouncing dependence on foreign oil

[wtmusic]

The folks over at FOX consider themselves very patriotic - but when money gets in the way, there's really no contest...

"While it is generally understood that America's dependence on foreign oil negatively impacts the country in many ways, both the citizenry and the media differ in how they choose to deal with the topic. Case in point: VoteVets, a group of veterans who are working to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, produced a commercial outlining some of the brutal realities that our addiction to crude creates. The commercial aired on CNN and MSNBC, but according to TreeHugger, the folks at Fox News have rejected the commercial because it is "too confusing."

After viewing the 30-second clip available after the jump, we have trouble seeing where the spot is confusing. The premise is quite simple: our nation's dependency on foreign oil benefits numerous hostile regimes and can even lead to war. So, if the commercial isn't "too confusing," then why did Fox News refuse to air it? TreeHugger suggests many possible reasons, but one stands out: Saudi prince Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, owns a seven percent stake in News Corp. (which owns Fox), so even suggesting that the U.S. should eliminate its dependence on foreign oil would appear to be a conflict of interest for the network."

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/10/video-fox-news-refuses-to-air-votevets-commercial-denouncing-de/#continued

[Whoa_Nelly]

1. Ain't it grand how Rupert Murdoch can control the US political climate?

:sarcasm:

[onehandle]

2. They wouldn't run my anti-sexual harassment ad.

I offered them twice the usual rate for placement in the 8-9 PM time slot.

The nerve!

[TomCADem]

3. In Your Face Corporate Censorship, ABC, NBC and CBS Are More Subtle

[leveymg]

4. The message of this ad is NOT progressive. It falsely links Iran with IEDs in Iraq, a charge that

was never substantiated. It's more "Bomb, bomb, bomb . . . bomb, bomb Iran" propaganda hinding behind a "green" energy-independence mask.

The OP has couched it with an anti-Fox message for this Board.

This same post has been put up here at least three times here in the last couple weeks. Why?

[wtmusic]

5. Dammit! Can't pull the wool over your eyes, can I?

Now, let's discuss why this is your second post defending Fox, and saying (falsely) that the commercial "falsely links Iran with IEDs in Iraq":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=534078#534082

You've couched your pro-petroleum-industry post in a convenient "anti-war" message twice now. Why?

[leveymg]

6. I'm neither defending Faux No Newz nor the Petrolcrats.

The TV ad I've seen several times in the DC area shows a convoy of American armoured vehicles blowing up. The next scene is of Ahmadinejad. Then we see the Iranian flag while the voice over talks about the costs of sending billions of dollars to the region. The fact is, we buy no oil from Iran under the terms of the existing embargo, and there has been no solid evidence presented, despite repeated charges from some Pentagon sources, that Iran has been responsible for providing or setting off IEDs in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

The ad is war propaganda wrapped in a green message. Why do you think I'm wrong about that?

[kristopher]

7. You are both right and wrong.

The ad does link war to a green message, but you have cause and effect backwards.

To appreciate the intent you must first realize that there are two fundamental values that motivate people to take action on energy issues - the external environmental costs and energy security. While most people possess both values, they prioritize them differently. They end up forming distinct sets of beliefs that are often at conflict; but sometimes there are common goals that can be the basis for joining forces. For example, those who push nuclear energy are primarily motivated by the high value they place on energy security, but they recognize that with the increased awareness of the effects of CO2 they can use an appeal to environmental values to increase support for a technology that should be rejected by those who place high emphasis on environmental values,

The goal of the producers (as I see it) is to co-opt the support of those who place a high value on energy security for abandoning the use of fossil fuels. To that end they are using the perceptions of those who are oriented towards security to make their point.

Fox rejected the ad (IMO) because it goes against their commitment to fossil fuels.

[leveymg]

10. Maybe so. Everyone sees propaganda through the lense of their own politics and recent experience

After Iraq WMD, mine are acutely honed to detect Big Lie campaigns.

You may be right about rank order of VoteVets agenda. As for Fox, they're just deluded.

[kristopher]

11. I know the field of public response to climate change.

I'm not really guessing about the strategy of VoteVets.

[leveymg]

12. I'm against global climate change. Take my word for that.

Do you work in the field of mass media, or for an environmental group?

[kristopher]

13. Neither.

I'm a semiretired energy policy analyst specializing in carbon management. I came to this as an end of life area to study; I have no affiliations.

I never doubted your stance on AGW; your point related to the war message was very clear.

[wtmusic]

8. The version I've linked to has no armored vehicles blowing up

and it doesn't claim that American $$ are going to Iran - although I have to admit that's implied:

"Iran gets $100,000,000 richer...selling oil around the world."

Whether we get oil directly or not from Iran, there's no doubt that Iran benefits from worldwide prices propped up by American consumption.

This is directly in reference to the floundering Kerry-Lieberman climate bill in the Senate. If anything it advocates using economic means instead of military ones to achieve foreign policy objectives.

It (awkwardly) attempts to use fear to sell the climate bill, but it's an even more obtuse way of garnering support for war.

[leveymg]

9. The version shown in the DC market shows a troop transporter blown up

Most of Iran's oil is sold in China with some going to Europe, Japan and India. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE63A01120100413 None of it comes to the U.S., so the part of the ad's message that implies that Iran gains from U.S. market demand is a bit disingenuous. U.S. and European energy consumption is relatively flat. The emerging economies of Asia that account for almost all increase in global demand in recent years.

The military is the largest single consumer of oil in the U.S. Let's focus on keeping that part of global demand down. ;-)

[diane in sf]

14. quelle surprise!