WELL—for all the shit you guys give Rob McKenna, I've definitely seen Rob McKenna ads on the slog. Just food for thought.
I think it's dangerous ground to start letting TV stations decide what ads should be seen, based solely on what one side thinks is "misleading."
@2 - the point is, they already do. They're private organizations and make those choices already. Not sure if you remember the kerfuffle over Fox News refusing to air an ad about DADT being a non-issue?
TV stations routinely run political advertisements that mislead people. They don't care - as long as they get their money.

A federal (Presidential) election season is like Christmas for local media. They make huge amounts of money running these obnoxious ads. With the Citizen's United decision, they are having a real bonanza. Why do you think they are fighting disclosure of financial records for political advertising?
@2 reality doesn't have a political bias. Reality is reality; if one side is running false ads, there is no reason that a TV station would run them but for their own financial benefit.
@2 - Absolutely, who are we to decide what are "facts" and what's "truthful"? One man's blatant, malicious lies are another man's dearly held religious beliefs, and heavens knows we can't deny anyone their constitutional right to blast their dearly held malicious lies over the God-given airwaves.
@4 Exactly. The real reason we'll never have fair campaign finance rules isn't about the politician's greed, it's about the billion dollar industry of elections.
Mirabella. Joe Mirabella.
Not Mirabello. If you're going to link to an article, at least get the basic info right.
American television exists to put a 24-hour salesbot in consumers' homes, fitness centers, airports, sports bars (and in restaurants, but people are already consuming there, so WTF?). Anti-marriage equality ads belong on TV as much as any moronic, fictional, misleadingly edited content has been aired for most of the past 65 years. TV stations do not have to run them, but the stations receive money for them. The medium of television is not a good fit for critical thinking, and let us be honest, not a lot of critical thinking goes on in TV-watcher land.
8: Fixed.
Part of the many reasons I watch very little of our local stations. The news is shit on even it's finest reporting, the TV shows are horrid and the four stations you list are nothing more than cum sucking leaches who would lick the inside of a used 4 day old condom if it would let them make a buck.

That said I did take some time and called the stations and expressed my disappointment
A tad hypocritical to run such a piece when you guys have misleading and lying ads on your own site sponsored by NOM.

Clean up your own glass house before you toss those stones.
Well, I didn't have much luck. Both KING 5 and KOMO 4 said, essentially, people who pay us can run whatever they want (by the way, the KOMO 4 number is wrong; try 888/477-5666); KIRO 7 was busy; and I didn't even try FOX.
Perhaps the real question should be, why aren't we seeing this on every station:
Yes, equal time rules do not apply anymore. They are not required. You can thank Ronald Reagan for that, since the fairness doctrine was no longer pertinent even back then as cable television expanded.
Those of you who will cry for a return to the fairness doctrine should note this thread for future reference.
@ 1, 12, I run adblocker plus so I don't see any ads, but I believe The Stranger runs google ads, as opposed to specific ads from McKenna or NOM. Somehow google sends those ads despite the fact that they stand against these people.

@ 15, the Fairness Doctrine applied to giving equal time to candidates. It did not require TV and radio stations to air any old BS ad that was thrown their way, and even in the old days, they could exercise discretion when it came to choosing which ads they aired.

So... your bringing it up is either grossly misinformed or highly disingenuous.
@16: They are still knowingly profiting off them though, in the same way that Schmader claims is completely unacceptable. They know Google ads run those repeatedly, if that is the case.

As for your last line...good luck parsing that one out.
@16: So noted. I always appreciate corrections.
If we get them to stop running ads we don't like, pretty soon they will only run ads THEY like. Leave this one alone.

I saw the anti-74 ad on TV for the first time last night (I don't watch much). What was my feeling about seeing this? "Haha, your gonna lose, dicks!"
@15 Refusing to enact "fairness bias" =/= blocking free speech. It means acknowledging that sometimes there really aren't two sides to an argument.

This is wise.

Allow me to elaborate. Right now, conservatives are taking a lot of flack for being FUCKING BATSHIT LOCO. Are they all that way? Nope, but by being "unbiased" and showing both sides to an "argument", Fox has run stories from Birthers, Racists, Tea Partiers, and Religious Wingnuts.

Sane, thinking people that might be interested in conservatism's core ideals are being scared the fuck away because they don't want to associate with this level of crazy.

Media can--and should--think about whether there actually are two sides to an argument. It doesn't make them freedom hating Islamofascists, it just means they aren't willing to give a podium to crazy. You are allowed to say crazy shit in this country, that should never change. But people who own podiums don't have to hand it over to the crazies. That's not freedom.
I see banner ads on Slog with the headline "I'm a Mormon". I don't have the stomach to click through and see what exactly it is they're advertising, but I think it's safe to assume the ads are promoting the church that was the main sponsor behind California's Prop 8. Remember them? The church that paid for all those TV ads that scared voters into believing that our kindergartners would be taught about gay buttsex in public schools and pastors would be thrown in jail for quoting the Bible.
@16, The fairness doctrine concerned every issue of public importance so lying bigots would likely be given access to the airwaves under the doctrine (but there would be a chance to refute their lies as well).

To pretend the multiplicity of cable channels, like our resident weasel @15, rendered the doctrine bunk is nonsensical. The purpose was to educate citizens on issues of relevance, the conditions for which are clearly not met if access is only available mostly on non-commercial channels that have tiny viewership.
@20: I agree with you there.
@22: Your last sentence is outdated. We're in the YouTube, Facebook, blogs, era in case you haven't noticed. And public access television is still alive and well.
@23, Nope, as the demographics using these media aren't the same as that of TV and Public Access TV typically has a small viewership. The Fairness Doctrine was meant to educate the public, not to educate those already educated enough to distrust traditional corporate media. Well, although you are wrong about the present situation, at least you implicitly admitted it was nonsense when Reagan said it (which isn't too committing as it is easy to argue that he hardly ever made sense)
@24: Who's calling for the return of the Fairness Doctrine? Liberals aren't even calling for it, present company excepted.
@25, You are mistaken as many Dems have said in the recent past they wanted some type of reinstatement:…

Obama said he was against reinstatement but he proposes new rules for media ownership and mission, which amounts to a more diverse ownership that is more responsive to public needs.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.