Slog Comments


Comments (15) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
pfffter 1
Totally agree.
Posted by pfffter on October 15, 2012 at 12:12 PM · Report this
Second that.
Posted by mitten on October 15, 2012 at 12:21 PM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 3
They do more good than bad, anyway. They sound dated and untrue. Like the pope wrote them.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on October 15, 2012 at 12:29 PM · Report this
mr. herriman 4
i called and bitched at a tv station once upon a time (1992-ish?) because they ran a political ad with a very graphic bloody abortion scene in it. the woman who answered the phone was very apologetic but said that because it was within x-number of days to the election, the station was legally obligated to run the ad. but they were only slated to run it the one time, so she was able to promise it wouldn't air again. she had gotten a lot of calls.

but i agree with you.
Posted by mr. herriman on October 15, 2012 at 12:58 PM · Report this
Nicely put, sir.
Posted by gloomy gus on October 15, 2012 at 1:06 PM · Report this
Joe 6
I respectfully disagree:

My friend Dominic’s argument is fair. After all when you start censoring speech, the slope gets pretty slippery.

However, this is not censorship. I’m simply calling the question, should for profit corporations profit from ads that cause real harm to real people. These are not a crappy made-for-TV infomercials. These ads are blatant lies about a protected class of people in Washington State that cause real harm. I don’t think the TV stations should run them. The FCC says they have a right to choose which issues based ads they run. This would not be the only editorial decision made by our local stations. Local TV stations make editorial decisions every day.

Newspapers make editorial decisions every day too. The Seattle Times certainly hasn’t been shy about their support for marriage. Neither has the Stranger. Would the Stranger be willing to run anti-gay ads? What’s the difference between a newspaper making it very clear newspapers have an opinion about a basic human right and asking a television station to make their position clear by drawing a very exceptional line in the sand? Personally, I don’t see much of a difference.

The rest is here:…
Posted by Joe on October 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM · Report this
Dominic, that seems juvenile and denies that the world is full of thinking people. You ask, if they can--based on public outcry--refuse to air their ads, what stops them from refusing to air our ads? The answer is public outcry. I'm all in favor of TV editors deciding what is and isn't hate speech for example. What is denigration and what's honest political disagreement. We live in a world with the fucking internet and motherfucking YouTube, where having you ad rejected just might get it more views. But it's not "views" that matter; it's minds changed. And when your trying to change minds it helps to have local TV stations on record that that shit is whack. What you're talking about is a brain dead--we show it, you decide--policy that let's TV off the hook for airing stupid and hateful stuff. The better question would be...if they will air this because "free speech" what won't they air?
Posted by LukeJoe on October 15, 2012 at 1:18 PM · Report this
LukeJoe is correct.
Posted by Meat Weapon on October 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM · Report this
Exactly what I said in the previous post -- and was promptly ridiculed for.

Ah, those open-minded Slog commenters.
Posted by bigyaz on October 15, 2012 at 1:49 PM · Report this
treacle 11
6, Um, the Stranger ran the deceitful Obama-McKenna-Ref74 ad. The very one they called out in their news stories and on Slog. Last I understood, the newsroom and the adverts department were "firewalled" and one did not influence the other. Kind of important for newspapers.

In other, Dom implies that getting rid of infomercials and televangelists "- poof" would be a bad thing. I couldn't disagree more. Mind-eating waste products, both of them.

Also, "leftie" ads already get vetoed by the networks often enough to make it clear that they have an active bias. How about getting rid of that bias before making the case to show out-and-out lies?

Political ads have descended to the level of snake-oil. Where are the fact-checking punishments for politicians lying to the citizenry so casually?
Posted by treacle on October 15, 2012 at 2:23 PM · Report this
MacCrocodile 12
@9 - Having Dominic on your side doesn't make you right or any less ridiculous.
Posted by MacCrocodile on October 15, 2012 at 3:06 PM · Report this
Geni 13
God, I miss the Fairness Doctrine.
Posted by Geni on October 15, 2012 at 3:58 PM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 14
Why can't WaUnited have a PSA calling the ads "dishonest and repugnant." What's so wrong with being honest?
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on October 15, 2012 at 5:25 PM · Report this
Media including TV stations and newspapers exercise their right to veto ads for "inappropriateness" all the time. Know why Hollywood doesn't make (many) NC-17 movies (or will cut them to get an R rating)? In part because many media outlets will not advertise NC-17-rated movies.

Certain other products can't be advertised on TV - when's the last time you saw an ad for Fleet enemas? - for similar reasons.

However - and this is a big HOWEVER - political speech may be deemed "different" than a commercial product, so the stations/papers may feel compelled to allow people (inc corporate people) to buy space/time in their medium.

But the media definitely pick and choose in order to avoid "controversy" - they'll air an anti-choice Super Bowl ad with Tim Tebow & His Mom but reject one from a religious denomination to welcome LGBTQ people into their church..
Posted by Jared Bascomb on October 15, 2012 at 8:35 PM · Report this
@6 There is a world of difference between issue-based censorship and viewpoint-based censorship. If the Reject 74 campaign are excluded based on the "issue" so too must be the Approve 74 ads.

Moreover, one shouldn't doubt for a second that the other side sincerely believes that the Approve 74 ads are "blatant lies ... that cause real harm." You think they're wrong. I happen to agree. But we live in a world of gray; more accurately, we live in a world where what one person sees as "black" another sees as "white." I don't want to live in a society where the wealthy owners of media conglomerates get to make the calls.
Posted by High Federalist on October 15, 2012 at 10:05 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.