Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What if Fox outlets and Clear Channel and others reject Dem ads?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:05 PM
Original message
What if Fox outlets and Clear Channel and others reject Dem ads?
Raising $ for TV and radio won't do much good with media shutting us out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
morgan2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. question
is CBS refusing moveon's ad just for the superbowl, or is it they won't accept it at all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. My understanding it is rejected - no situations where it will run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. I saw it played on CNN several times.
So not everyone is rejecting ads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Was it part of a "report" (Wolf Blitzer, Inside Politics, etc)
or a regular "commercial?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeatleBoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. Then we get out from behind our computers
and start knocking on our neighbors doors and speaking with them.

I know its old fashion, but its effective!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. In the end, we will win door to door, one on one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeatleBoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. Sounds like you've done this before
Like me. (Many times)

Bless you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. I know I sound like a "broken record" (shows my age)..
but this year we need to get active. Don't depend on TV, radio or newspapers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mlawson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
3. I don't believe they can.
Isn't there something called a 'Fairness Doctrine' for media??? Yeah, as unreal as that sounds....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Fairness like on Fox "News".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mlawson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. I know. But I seem to remember that there is an FCC rule
about this. Ads from 'major' parties have to be shown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
26. Used to be
Guess who had it repealed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2Sailsgirls Donating Member (70 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
8. i bet you...
...that the media will still be called the liberal media
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baby_bear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
10. No more Fairness Doctrine (since Reagan days)
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/...

<snip>

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.
...
By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.
...
Currently...there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue.

</snip>

There's more, but you get the point. We're at the mercy of the broadcasters. And if the broadcasters are in the pockets of the Republicans (or the other way around), well, that's one more reason to make sure that Democrats are back in control of Congress and the White House ASAP.

s_m
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Thank you for taking the time to reply.
We really do have a problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
11. They won't
above all, their god is the Almighty Dollar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frank frankly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
13. wow, if they don't ban them, the freepers will go krazy
awesome.

but if they ban them--well, that's why they invented paint ball contraptions. both companies own most of the billboards...

;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frank frankly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
14. wow, if they don't ban them, the freepers will go krazy
awesome.

but if they ban them--well, that's why they invented paint ball contraptions. both companies own most of the billboards...

;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
16. If you are referring to official campaign ads, I don't think they can.
If you are referring to official campaign ads, I don't think they can.

If you are referring to other MoveOn ads, they might.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. The former. What's to stop them?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
number6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
18. will Democrats wake up and bust the media monopoly ..?
open up a can of whoop ass on the media whores ..?
I freaking hope so .......... :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
20. dusting the cobwebs
didn't this happen in 2000 mid-terms? Dem ads not shown as too contraversial?

dp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
21. If they do that, then start a whisper campaign against them
Something like "--- News is Satan's news channel. People become agents of Satan by watching it." might be effective (and probably is not too far from the truth) against the fanatical religious base of the Right wingnuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhoCountsTheVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
23. They will reject ads paid for and produced by grassroots groups
If we have the cover of the Democratic party, or some establishment lobbyist or nonprofit group, they will take money and air the ads.

I think MoveOn is too (small d) democratic, too grassroots, and the organizational model works too well for the corporations to allow it.

These new grassroots organizations hooked together by email and the internet might be able to effectively keep the corporations in check though... This is not over. Perhaps we will televise the revolution ourselves?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CalebHayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
24. Reminds me of the CBS Moveon deal
I don't know why they have to be assholes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
25. Don't spend time inventing problems.
One ad from one source got rejected during primary season. This isn't the first time advocacy ads have been rejected, and certainly won't be the last.

It's not the end of the world, and the media buyers in the party and the PACs are prety well up on things.

No way in hell could ANY major media outlet refuse ads without a damn good reason. They owe their souls to regulators in DC, and they have no intention of seriously pissing anyone with any clout.

Even local outlets don't want to be accused of being obviously one-sided. Even if they are.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-04 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
27. There are regulations governing candidate ads
not related to the Fairness Doctrine.

Basically, a broadcast outlet has two options regarding candidate ads in a specific race:

1) Accept any and all ads from all qualified candidates on an equal basis.

2) Tell any and all candidates, "Sorry, but we aren't accepting any ads in the (Presidential/school board/dogcatcher) race."

What I am NOT sure about is what would happen if Faux et al. declared DNC ads to be "too controversial". Remember, under McCain-Feingold, you're going to see a lot more of these "issue advocacy" ads and fewer "hard money" offical candidate ads.

Could THIS have been why the 'Pukes didn't fight McCain-Feingold tooth and nail?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 21st 2017, 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC