ABC refused to air Renewable Energy ad during 2008 election - to not offend big OIL

[JohnWxy]

Remember, we were just recovering from the doubling in the price of oil from Sept 2007 through June 2008.


http://www.alternet.org/media/141990/our_last_chance_to_preserve_life_on_earth_is_slipping_away/

~~
~~

The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine was one of the most devastating attacks on truth. Do not underestimate the powerful alignment of media owners and talk radio voices committed to keeping it from returning. If you do not believe we need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, read the very words that ABC executives thought were too controversial to run on national television during the election season in 2008:


(Alliance for Climate Protection (ACP) ad:__JW)

"The solution to our climate crisis seems simple. Repower America with wind and solar. End our dependence on foreign oil. A stronger economy. So why are we still stuck with dirty and expensive energy? Because big oil spends hundreds of millions of dollars to block clean energy. Lobbyists, ads, even scandals. All to increase their profits, while America suffers. Breaking big oil’s lock on our government, now that’s change. We’re the American people and we approve this message."


These are obviously outrageous, even dangerous words because they mention the millions of dollars flowing to the networks from false energy ads. In the spirit of full disclosure, the above-mentioned inflammatory ads came from the Alliance for Climate Protection (ACP), a tripartisan organization founded by a nonprofit, nonpartisan effort composed of Nobel laureate and former vice president Al Gore, four well-known Republicans, three prominent Democrats, and one lowly independent (me). The ACP submitted the above ad to ABC to have it aired on September 26, during 20/20. We paid $85,000 for the airtime, but the morning the ad was to run, the network rejected it.

~~
~~

The 2008 debates, news, and convention coverage were universally sponsored by the energy industry. ExxonMobil, for example, sponsored the convention coverage of CNN and CBS. It is safe to say that Big Coal and Big Oil owned the advertising space around the 2008 elections coverage. Far too few climate and energy questions were asked during both the primary and general election debates. Those few that were asked by the moderator were not followed up on for needed details on position differences. Since energy was the driving issue at the time of both conventions, you would think news outlets would avoid both the appearance and actual conflict of interests. Imagine how Civil War–era history might have been altered if a wealthy class of slave-trading merchants had funded the newspaper coverage during the Republican National Convention at which Abraham Lincoln was chosen.

(more)

[kimmerspixelated]

1. So therefore the media is also a big part of the problem.

Big Corporations obviously have more power than any of us, or sometimes all of us. The media is in a co-dependent relationship.

It's like Big Oil is the alcoholic hubby, and the media is the long suffering wife that will always look the other way.

THIS CRAP HAS TO STOP! NOW!

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. They mounted a petition writing campaign at the time

http://www.wecansolveit.org/page/s/ABC

http://www.grist.org/article/ad-lib1/

The Alliance for Climate Protection says ABC barred ad calling out Big Oil

Posted 11:10 AM on 10 Oct 2008
by Kate Sheppard

…

The Alliance had arranged to run the ad during the Sept. 26 airing of the news magazine 20/20, the same night of the first presidential debate. The group said it submitted the ad seven days before it was scheduled to run. According to representatives from the campaign, on Sept. 25 ABC sent an e-mail notifying them that the ad had been rejected. The network's stated reason? The one frame of the ad showing the Capitol building violated the network's guidelines.

"Per our Guidelines, national buildings may be used in advertising provided the depictions are incidental to the advertiser's promotion of the product or service," said the e-mail, which was provided to Grist by the Alliance. "Given the messages and themes of this commercial, the image of the Capital building is not incidental to this advertising. Please replace the image with one that is not of another national building or monument. Thank you."

Alliance communications director Giselle Barry told Grist it should be clear that the image of the Capitol building is pertinent to an advertisement about the lobbying power the fossil fuels industry has in Washington, D.C.

Grist's repeated requests for comment from ABC and Disney were not returned. Meanwhile, the Alliance said its letter-writing campaign had yielded more than 128,000 e-mails to the network within the first 24 hours of sending out their e-mail blast. The group is hoping that public pressure will convince the network to air the ad during tonight's episode of 20/20.

…

[jtrockville]

3. We don't have a chance in hell of being informed by these tools.

They only "report" what their owners want us to know, whether or not it's true.
That can't be called "news" under any stretched definition.

[JohnWxy]

4. right. It's "public relations" copy crafted to meet approval of Corporations and not offend GOP.

And now the John Roberts Supreme Court wants to give corporations the latitude to spend whatever amounts of money they want on campaign advertizing for candidates and causes of their controllers choice.

(note that you can exercise control of a corporation without having a majority of the shares of the corporation. In fact, you can control a corporation holding a relatively small amount of the total outstanding shares of the corporation. Thus, it is not a case of each shareholder having an equal say in what the corporation does, but how many shares you own that determines how much influence you have over the corporations actions.)

Roberts is going to say in his judgement that corporations have a "right" to "free speech".

Frankly, I don't see how corporations have ANY rights. Rights are reserved for human beings. Corporations are machines, economic contrivances to engage in business to accumulate wealth for their owners. THe OWNERS of the corporation DO have rights. Just as any of us have. The owners of corporations do exercise their rights to free speech. But that is not good enough if you are a fascist. If you are a fascist, corporations have rights just as people have rights.