Fox News refuses to run pro-Constitution ad
Fox News has refused to air an ad produced by the Center for Constitutional Rights that criticizes the Bush administration for "destroying the Constitution" by the use of renditions, torture, and other tactics. The ad, "Rescue the Constitution," which is narrated by actor Danny Glover, can be viewed here and here.
In an email provided to Media Matters for America by the Center, Fox News account executive Erin Kelly told Owen Henkel, the Center's e-communications manager, that Fox would not run the ad:
Hi Owen --
We cannot approve the spot with it being Danny Glover's opinion that the Bush Administration is destroying the Constitution. If you have documentation that it is indeed being destroyed, we can look at that.
Sorry about that,
Erin
In 2005, Fox refused to run an ad critical of then-Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito Jr., who had been nominated by President Bush to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Interesting. Didn't FOX "News" run those shameless ads by Ari Fleischer's group? You know, the ones that made the not-so-subtle connection between 9/11 and the Iraq War?
Fox did indeed run those ads, as did CNN. However MSNBC & CNBC refused to.
Here's a link to a letter Freedom's Watch wrote to NBC:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/08/018302.php
Don't know if anything came of it.
Exactly where was the outrage ?
The outrage was and is at Freeperville.
Well Sue, of course you won't find outrage here about it. But it does make me snicker that MMFA is up in arms over this, but doesn't note anywhere that refusing to show politically related ads has been done before.
Of course the Left is up in arms over Glover's ad not being shown on Fox, just as I'm sure the Right was up in arms over MSNBC & CNBC not showing the ad by Freedoms Watch.
It's all partisan.
That's why I'd love to see someone start up a media watchdog site that kept a check on both sides.
who watches the watchers who watch the watchers and where would the watcbers decide to end
who watches the watchers who watch the watchers and where would the watcbers decide to end
Now say that real fast 3 times!
Could be one of those tongue twisters like Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers? Or selling shells done by the seashore? Or how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
;-)
You. I like.
Hey thanks Pepper.
Actually I'm usually crowned Mr. Congeniality here every year ;-)
A woodchuck would chuck all the wood he could chuck, if a woochuck could chuck wood.
From Wibbleton to Wobbleton is fifteen miles. From Wobbleton to Wibbleton is fifteen miles.
Peppered Pauper panders proper,
the glib lib Jeter liked his letter.
Finarfin sat on a wall.
Finarfin had a great fall.
Hey J$
Did MSNBC & CNBC show the Glover ad or something similiar?
MHK,
I'm not sure I understand what your question is about?
I've no idea whether MSNBC or CNBC has decided to run Glover's ad. I just know they wouldn't run the Freedoms Watch ad. Fox & CNN did.
BTW, I thought that ad Freedom Watch made was deceiving & disgusting.
It's a relivent question to the arguement your trying to make. We know that Fox will show politically charged ads as long as they fit with a certain view point. Can you say the same about MSNBC and CNBC? Do they have a blanket ban on politically charged ads from either side or are they selective like Fox is?
Actually MHK I wasn't making an "argument", I was simply pointing out that MSNBC & CNBC had also refused to run an ad.
I've no clue what policy or criteria Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC or any of the major networks have when deciding to run or reject politically related ads.
J your post left me with the impression that you think all of the networks in question are partisan in some manner by virtue of not show ads. I'm just trying to point out that the issue isn't really about not running the ad, it's about being consistent to a non-bias standard. Fox is being selective in which politically charged advertisement they show based on point of view their trying to push forward. You haven't demonstrated that MSNBC, CNBC, or CNN are guilty of the same thing.
CNN could show ads from both sides. MSNBC and CNBC could choice to avoid the entire issue all together and not show ad of this nature from either side.
I have no idea and that's why I asked you the question.
Oh ok MHK-- now I think I know what you're getting at [correct me if I'm wrong]
When I wrote: It's all partisan...I was referring to these media watchdog sites like MMFA & any number of Right-Wing sites. They are all partisan...Another words they only get up in arms when they think their side is a victim of bias or misinformation.
So when I pointed out that MSNBC & CNBC had refused to run a Conservative friendly ad, it wasn't much different than Fox refusing to run a Liberal friendly ad. And MMFA isn't going to cover alleged Left-wing bias, just like a Right-Wing watchdog group won't cover alleged Right-Wing bias.
As far as whether MSNBC/CNBC have a selective policy/criteria based on a Left bias, well I'm not certain. But given their refusal to run the Freedom Watch ad, it might be an interesting thing to research.
That is the crux of my point and the reason why it's not a accurate compairson IMO, unless one could show that MSNBC and CNBC are being selective about which ads they air based on a political bias.
"That's why I'd love to see someone start up a media watchdog site that kept a check on both sides." - Jeter2
Jeter, is this the site you're looking for?
http://www.factcheck.org/
They've been around for a bit.
Hey DarkMass, welcome back, I haven't seen you around the threads for quite awhile.
Thanks for jogging my memory. I had forgotten about FactCheck.
"Hey DarkMass, welcome back, I haven't seen you around the threads for quite awhile." - Jeter2
Jeter, oh, I post something from time to time.
As just about always, my posts are incredibly pithy, to the point, substantiated...and ignored. This is the way the world often works. Still, we guerrilla socialists never completely rest. :^)
Fair.org has taken Factcheck.org to task more than once over Factcheck's habbit of being "fair and balaced" ...Fox style. On many an occasion when i used to visit that site, Factcheck would equate a blatant and verifiable Bush error (to be nice) with a Kerry comment that, if interpreted a certain way doesn't change the truthfullness of his point BUT does make him seem like an exadgerator.
Factcheck falls victim to the same "false balance" that most of the MSM does. Can't just call a lie a lie unless you find a democrat who also says something that sounds like an exadgeration.
But it does make me snicker that MMFA is up in arms over this
Uh, bit of a stretch.
Yes and they were so mad, they wrote a lengthy article that went on and on about it. That's how "up in arms" they were.
Yeah, just read a handful of comments over at the powerline link and apparently the outrage was over there too.
Imagine my suprise.
Oh do you mean why was there no outrage here? Because those ads were utter propaganda and warranted no greater outrage than the very fact they even exist.
Indeed the arrogant political calculation it took Ari and his gang of thugs to hide behind noble service men and women and their families like he did.
Bush and Cheney 07 Death incorporated. And are we any safer because of Iraq?
What about the free market, Fox has the right....., What is this doing here?
Fair and Balanced doesn't apply to the sale of advertising.
Danny glover is a commie rat.
The constitution, like the Geneva Conventions, is a "quaint document".
There, I saved a lot of people some typing.
"Fair and Balanced doesn't apply to the sale of advertising." - worrierking Nor does it apply to Fox News. Dissenting opinions are simply not allowed; before, during or after commercial breaks.
Do you honesty think Danny Glover is a communist?
And for that matter...do you think he's a rat (dishonest, etc)?
Or, do you just hate Danny Glover because you just another f*cking cultist and for some reason you're suppose to?
Your name really should be "temphandle intentionally3clueless"
Correction, Worrier, Glover is a Muslim. >:-)
I wonder if FOX "News" demands "documentation" from all of their advertisers. Maybe somebody could compile a list of their advertisers...it could make for interesting reading.
Volvo
This begs the question - why does Fox News hate America?
We people need to unite against both the dems and the repubs for playing politics with us while secretly trying to pass HR 1955 that kucinich just said was unconstitional and goes further in making protest illegal. Lets stop the petty bickering and partisanship, abandon both parties and all switch to independent.
Will Fox News run ads only for Republicans, but not for Democrats?
Do they run any other ads of a politcal nature? I have to ask as I never watch it. I takes several hours of reading and watching other sources to correct for every hour of mis-information from Fox. I just don't have the time.
I don't watch it much either. Occasionally I'll tune in to see what O'Reilly or Hannity are lying about, but I can only stand so much.
I wonder if they run ads for those products that "enhance the size of that certain part of a man's body"? Given their demographic, one would assume so.
I was watching RedEye last night and a comment was made if you are blonde, blue eyes you can get a job at FOX. It was an amazing moment of candor.
NERZOG:
It's tough keeping up with O'Reilly actually "lying". What with his regular analysis of "body language", the unfunny "humor" sessions with Dennis Miller, his bombastic outrage about warring on Christmas based on what some hardware store in Podunk, Idaho has done, his "quiz show" with Steve Doocey, his whining about websites that have dared to criticize him, and peddling his books, he doesn't spend a lot of time on "hard news" any more.
Erin, please write coherently... 'with it being' is not proper English... and 'documentation..????' !!!! Are you kidding me..??? Do you read anything at all, EVER?!?!
Maybe she thought the actual. original Constitution was being destroyed, and wanted video of Bush putting it into a shredder.
Best laugh of the morning so far for me, Fox suddenly being a stickler for "documentation".
Bush putting the Constitution in a shredder... Hmmmm... truly compelling image, that!
No kidding... 'Oh, the most important document in U.S. history is being violated as we speak? Well, just throw your documented sources on my desk and I'll have a look-see at them after my lunchtime martinis... Now be a sport and get me a picture of black man doing some harm to a white girl- thanks, buck-o...'
They won't show this ad, but they'll allow Hannity to show a piece saying that angels are walking among us.
Wow! Can he document that?
... only the ones that dance on the head of a pin..., you know, 43 of 'em...
Classic stall / obstruction tactic - Asking someone to document something that is self-evident. As soon as they say that, you know they'll never be conviced, so don't waste your time.
I hate for one minute to support FOX, but I don't see the issue here. If they choose not to run an ad then so be it. Does MMFA believe that networks are bound by some invisible agreement to be fair, or fair as MMFA defines fairness? Does this action lend credence to the opinion of FOX's bias? Sure, probably as much as MSNBC did with its action on Fleisher's ad mentioned by Jeter.
Fox did run an ad for the Mark Cuban produced movie during an O'Reilly show. The same one O'Reilly derided as unpatriotic. You got to love that. This happenned when O'Reilly was leading a recon mission in Afghanistan and single handedly stopped a Taliban attack while at the same time improving troop morale by giving away copies of his lame book and "factor" trinkets. He can do this because he is 6 foot 4 ya know. I suppose now we can be so lucky to hear how he has "survived" the perils of Afghanistan and how his opinion on our action there is now gospel. BTW, he commented after his return that IF he was in the country at the time HE and only HE would have stopped such an ad from appearing on FOX. Anyway, the fact that MMFA posted this non-story and we are commenting on it not only shows that this is a slow news day but our complete and unessential boredom. My opinion of course. That and $3.00 will get me a gallon of gas.
Valid point, except that how often does Fox claim to be "Fair and Balanced?" They are not required to run any ad, of course. But it qualifies as "misinformation" for Fox to continue to market themselves as "Fair and Balanced" and while running only pro-conservative / republican-partisan ads. This is merely evindence which (further) demonstrates that fallacy.
Ture, but they would then counter with the notion that the type of ads they run has nothing to do with the content of their news programming. Of course, dollars from large companies can certaintly give rise to "agenda driven" news. Unfortunately this is nearly impossible to prove. In any event, I don't think that is the case with FOX. They are not beholden to a cabal of corporate entities with conservative agendas. They are beholden to the political views of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, thus you see the right wing bias in their programming and news content. We all seen it in "Outfoxed". It's as plain as the splotches on O'Reilly's face.
I think if the truth was known this occurred due to O'Reilly. O'Reilly's explosion due to ad shown during his absence on his show probably grabbed some administrative attention. This has O'Reilly's grubby prints all over it. In the end I'll bet he takes credit for this.
Hmmmm.....
Well, like I said, they don't "HAVE" to run the ad, but if you want to claim to be "fair and ablanced" without getting lughed out of the room, you should occasionally give your opposition a voice - especially if they're paying for the time.
As for Bill-O - the only thing he knows about objectivity is the objectification of women, so whatever he has to say about it, I'm sure that (1) It will be a matter of supreme indifference to me -and- (2) it will end up both as an article on this site, and on Mr. Olbermann's WPOTW segement. (Both of which I will enjoy seeing.)
We agree on a whole, but I don't think they have an obligation to advertisers to met the "fair and balanced" slogan. If that were the case they would need to give equal time to competing commercial products. Show a Budwieser commercial and they would need to show a Miller commercial as well to satisfy your logic here. The obligation to that slogan is within their news reporting.
As long as both entities provided the necessary thirst quenching, great tasting, responsibly drunk getting "documentation", I'm sure Fox News would air both spots and cash the checks. Your point misses the "documentation" piece that is central to this topic.
You are pitifully wrong again. If you knew the point of this thread you would not have made admittingly emotional arguments based on assumptions. The point here is that the "fair and balanced" slogan pertains to the NEWS REPORTING. That is whay they coined that term because it is their belief that no other news organization does so. Therefore, it is illogical to say that their advertising protocol must meet yours or MMFA;s definition of fair to satisify the "fair and balanced" slogan. Why is this so hard for you?
The "fair and balanced" slogan appears nowhere in the MMFA item above.
No S--t Sherlock. Have you not paid attention to the flow of the conversation here? The world doesn't revolve around you. Pay attention.
I hate for one minute to support FOX, but I don't see the issue here. If they choose not to run an ad then so be it.
Fox News is choosing not to run the ad on the grounds that the facts asserted within the spot as not documented. That, to me, is an issue. It’s also a load of crap.
meant "...are not documented."
So??? I don't get your point. Are you saying that FOX should be mandated to run ad's they choose not to? I mean look, we can all agree to their clear right wing bias and their decision here was clear in terms of why.
If MMFA is running this to reinforce the notion of FOX's bias then fine, but if it is to advocate for some type of fairness in who FOX chooses to give ad time to then I can't agree with that. That is all I'm saying here.
I mean look, we can all agree to their clear right wing bias and their decision here was clear in terms of why.
What's clear about their decision?
Tsk, Tsk, Tsk, you'll not trap me like that. I'll say this again, We can all agree that FOX is biased. The million dollar question is whether MMFA posted this to further reinforce this or are they advocating that FOX has some type of obligation to run ads they choose not to. The reality is that they shouldn't have to explain to anyone the reasoning behind their decision. There is a little thing called "freedom" at work here, even for FOX.
Tsk, Tsk, Tsk, you'll not trap me like that.
I asked you why you thought Fox News’ decision to ban the ad was clear.
It seems to me that in the introduction they indicated that their was no documentation to support the content of the ad. Seems pretty clear to me? If you choose not believe that and ascribe to a more sinister approach, then fine. I won't disagree on a whole.
The ad is the documentation.
What????? The folks in administration indicated their was no supporting documentation. They have that right to make that call. I can make an ad about the Holy Grail and use the Davinci Code movie and call it my documentation, but that would be disingenious. Seems to me that they are asking for DOCUMENTATION to support the opinions. The ad is an opinion piece, you do get that right?
The ad is an opinion piece, you do get that right?
I do. Do you?
Right, it is an opinion piece. FOX said they need documentation to back up that opinion piece. You say the ad is the documentation. If that is the case, then they wouldn't need documentation would they? Soooooo, do you really get this or are you just acting like it.
Do you honestly think that Fox News requires the buyer to provide documented facts in order to gain advertising time with them to express an opinion? Fox News disagreed with it politically and their sad-sack excuse of “documentation” was a load of crap.
So says you. Your entire argument relies on assumption.
And I feel VERY comfortable with my assumption.
On what do you base this assumption? Has this occurred in the past? Has their been conservative opinion pieces advertised with non supporting documentation? Again, their bias is not in question here in terms of their news. As I pointed out before, they did run an ad for a movie that most on the right has called bogus, dangerous to the troops, and unpatriotic. That rather minimizes your assumption, no? Don't get me wrong here, I would love for you to prove me wrong. I'm no FOX fan.
I don't have to prove anything. I’m very content with why I think they refused the ad.
Has their been conservative opinion pieces advertised with non supporting documentation?-Mr. Page
Yes.
Any O'Reilly Factor teaser on Fox is an advertisement for undocumented opinions. O'Reilly himself is an undocumented opinionist. That translates into Conservatese as illegal commentary. Bill O'Reilly is an illegal commentator. As such he is breaking our laws, violating the sovereignty of American journalistic borders.
He is doing the job Americans just won't do. He is stealing work, sucking public resources and driving the country to bankruptcy sending all his earnings back home to his offshore accounts. He is ruining healthcare in the U.S.
He's trash. He's scum. He should be deported from the reality community. He's vermin. He's a cockroach. Go back where you came from Bill.
Do you have any clue what a paid advertisment is??? Here is a hint....they usually come on in between segments. Normally these entities can sometimes be referred to as commercials. If you have a hard time with that try this......they try to sell ya' stuff you might use, like medicine, deodorant, beer...yeeee haw!!! We are talking about a paid advertisments here. Keep up.
"We are talking about a paid advertisments [sic] here. Keep up." - achrispage6992
You don't have to be insulting. Indeed, it's advertising. Why then would Fox News require the buyer to provide "documentation" in order to gain advertising time with them to express an opinion?
Do you really need me to answer that question for you?????? I find your line of reasoning hard to believe especially coming from someone who threatened me previously with being libelous. Think about it.
I said your post about me (that MMFA deleted) was libelous. Not sure how that’s a threat.
No sir, you said I needed to be CAREFUL about using libelous statements. Telling someone to be careful by definition is warning them. Quit trying to weasel out of this. Admit your wrong and move one. Noone will think less of you.
I was correctly warning you that your post might get deleted, which it was.
The world does not revolve around you. Pay attention.
Oh yeah, did you at least think about slander/libel when asking yourself why a business would make sure an opinion piece in which someones character is assaulted is supported? I'm sorry, but this is like trying to reason with a drunk.
You're a little wound up. Kinda tight. I understand. I've been reading your exchanges with the other fellow, I guess I can understand your perturbations (not really). In the spirit of understanding I forgive you for not seeing my work as cheek.
I realized that. I enjoy stirring the pot and a good debate. I try to never take anything personal and I never lose sleep over discussion on a blog for pete's sake. I too have read your other post's and while I'm not in the business of psychoanalyzing people I have never met, I see your angle. Perhaps I tend to use more biting sarcasm than others. I ain't the only one though. Anyway, thanks for the impromptu counseling session, I feel muuuuuuch better now.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/fox_news_wont_show_guantanamo.html?f=h_top
This may help you understand the disingenuous nature of Fox News’ refusal to run the ad. It was clearly a political bias on the part of Fox News that led them to misstate and obfuscate their murky policy for paid advertisements.
You point to a political blog to make that assertion? What in that piece demonstrably supports your position? Why do you refuse for one minute to give any credence to the idea that maybe FOX really wanted to obtain some evidence before running a hit piece ad? I understand you disdain for FOX and conservatives but come on! Until you can prove otherwise it doesn't amount to a hill of beans, you have said it very eloquently, you are comfortable in your assumption. I will grant you that not having supporting evidence was an easy out for them to adhere to their political bias, but in the end FOX's stipulations are rationale. Just as MSNBC is able to rationalize their actions. Do you not see the comparison? IF it's not o.k for FOX to be bias then is it o.k for MSNBC? Speak out against them and you will at least lose the levity in your position.
FOX's stipulations are rationale.
What are they?
That supporting documentation be submitted before a hit piece is aired.
Your complete and utter lack of objectivity is showing in your attempt to explain Fox News’ policy on procuring advertisement time with the network.
... and if you honestly believe that Fox News will run the ad upon receipt of said documentation, then I highly recommend that you start wearing hockey equipment at all times. I don’t care what size bus you took to school back in the Mesozoic era, just do it!
Ain't it good to know you're loved by people who disagree with you? And you're right you are not the only sarcastic sot. Score one for you.
Thanks I'll expect some consistency from you when others here, even those who always tote the far left line, become offensive with their sarcasm. I can't wait.
I'll be happy to consistently show you how much people here love you.
I see, so if I produce an ad called "Hillary is a Lesbian" Fox News should be forced to run it?
If not they are not living up to their slogan. But then again, why ask for evidence of such an ad.
You would have a point IF they also asked for evidence for rightwing ads, which of course they dont and wont and have run ads that the LATimes described as FALSE in an article where they said both sides run ads that are mean spirited and the difference is the GOP was running ads that were mean spirited and FALSE. It is a silly argument to make anyway. The ad was an opinion ad. That Bush is shredding the constitution really is subjective to an extent. I dont understand why you are taking this side of the argument we both KNOW Fox isnt being fair and I would be shocked into a coma if they began to BE fair. The have used a double standard in regards to such ads. That is plain. They also use OUR airwaves as the very resource they exploit to make their money which makes it fair game to criticise them for that double standard. Its not like I am inscenced. I would expect nothing else but its plain we have a solid reason to criticise them for their double standard here
No one is saying anything about requiring them to run the ad. The point is that if they wish to claim "fair and balanced" while only running political ads from one end of the spectrum they open themselves up to legitimate criticism.
That's all MMFA is doing, pointing out the hypocrisy.
If that is the point that you garner from the post then fine. I have indicated that if that is the case then fine. I'm curious as to what n the content of the intro led you to believe that MMFA's point here is hypocrisy in relation to the "fair and balanced" label. I saw it more as a protest of FOX being unfair to advertisers, as if FOX has an obligation to show opinion ads.
Re-reading it, I think you're right. MMFA doesn't make the case that I first thought.
May I amend my post to say that that is the case I thought they should have made?
That is fine. I guess it just goes to show how different people have different perceptions of the same thing. Maybe MMFA will qualify this for our benefit.
Qualify what?
If I tell you that my friend Jim said "it's friday"
There is nothing to qualify. If you want to know what he meant, you will have to go ask Jim.
Please read the above exchange. It's really rather simple, I indicated that perhaps MMFA would qualify what the point of the entry orginally was.
Is that all you got? Do you know what a qualified statement is?????? Perhaps you should read again. And to think I thought this was an intelligent conversation. You don't have to resort to this just because I mopped the floor with you. It's o.k. kid, start training, make a comeback.
I'm not in a contest with you. Congratulations nonetheless.
Thanks. Perhaps you'll do better next time. Try arguing with facts instead of being comfortable with assumptions. And, don't threaten me again please, you've seen right away that you will be met head on. I've lived through a hell of alot more than you can throw at me. Have a nice day!
"And, don't threaten me again please, you've seen right away that you will be met head on."
I did not threaten you. Please try and stick to the topic. You are getting weird.I don't get why the typeface above is like that. In any case, I did not threaten you. Please try and stick to the topic.
Are you really serious? "Please try to stick to the topic" Was it or was it not you who wrote "You should be careful with statements that are libelous?" The funny thing is with this post I have allowed you to dictate the direction of this discussion. I can see why you want to jump around like you have though, considering the beat down I gave you earlier.
You really need to post with content that can be seen. The content of your posting is so small I can't read it pardner. Pony up.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
In an American Free Press, Free Access to the Airways they need only be fair, and balanced. Here we are, Rupert the Murdoch has decided what is fit for American consuption.
The Honor of American Democracy, the "Now Myth of America The Home of The Brave, Land Of The Free" can be revealed, let us not forget whom to blame.
American Voters, Americans fell asleep at the wheel, became apathetic, and let the rich amoung us rob us of our civil liberties, freedoms, honor, and finally our democracy!
So, what are we going to do about this Neo-Conservative Fascist we elected?
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
"So, what are we going to do about this Neo-Conservative Fascist we elected?"
Fire up the PS3, log on to some pr0n, and pretend it's not happening?
Hey, it's worked so well for us so far.
Does MMFA believe that networks are bound by some invisible agreement to be fair, or fair as MMFA defines fairness? - achrispage6992
Maybe MMFA believes that a network that flaunts the VERY VISIBLE slogan "fair and balanced" should at least make an honest attempt to be fair.
Fair to who.............you?
Can I turn that around then and ask, Just who, then is Fox being fair & balanced toward if not me and you and everyone else?
Please re-read. I said "Maybe MMFA believes..."
Is that not clear to you?
O.K., what is not evidently clear to you is that you are indicating that the "fair and balanced" slogan covers all operating aspects of FOX news from advertising to janitorial work. The reality is that "fair and balanced" is directed at their news content. If you can show me how giving ad time to this would have somehow lessened the bias in their news reporting than you might have a point. I just don't see how the type of ads shown on commercials between segments adds to Brit Hume or O'Reilly being more fair and balanced.
Not airing it just reinforces the bias that is evident. Having said that, I'm not sure airing it would make it any better.
I don't see it that way, Does MSNBC air conservative opinion ads with no supporting documentation to prove fairness? Makes no sense. Despite not being a FOX fan, they have a right to not air any ad they please. The "fair and balanced" slogan pertains to the NEWS they report. They indicated why they did not air the ad. Saying that a news network must air opinion advisertisments to prove fairness is laughable unless you make that a protocol for ALL news networks.
Of course they can show whatever ads they want on the Fox network, but to pretend that it doesn't show bias (by airing ads from one side of a political specturm and not the other) or that the bias of the network doesn't influence the "news"is just strange.
Fine, what particular right wing opinion ads have they aired that did not have the supporting documentation they recently asked for?
Have you even watched any of the Freedom Watch ads? Since the majority of the ads in question are based on opinion on the evens in Iraq, what possible proof could you provide to support them?
http://www.freedomswatch.org/MediaCenter/VideoAds/tabid/73/Default.aspx
Review the Laura Youngblood ad....
Please tell what documents could you possibly provide to prove that "switching their votes for political reasons (politicans) will mean more attacks in America?
Review The Wroblewski family ad.
Basically Mr Wroblewski is stating that "we need to have more talk about winning then about pulling our troops out, that is important to our country and it will keep our country safe"
So apprently positive talk is going to keep our country safe? Can you tell me what possible documented evidence could you provide to support this statement?
Review the MoveOn ads (there are 2)
Moveon.org is losing their battle because America and the forces of freedom are winning theirs.
What documents are you going to provde to prove the above statement?
Did you watch the Glover ad? Do you not see the difference in how it is markedly different from the Freedom watch ads in presentation? Good try though.
Right, achrispage6992, Freedom Watch provided Fox News with the necessary “documentation” and the Center for Constitutional Rights did not.
I don't know if they did or not, do you?
The Youngblood ad is not a blanket accusation. The Youngblood ad takes personal experiences and transforms that into a call to ask that folks support her opinion through that more attacks will occur.
The Glover ad is paid for by the organization who is representing the Guantanimo Bay prisoners and makes a blanket statement through snippets of Bush quotes that the Bush administration is "destroying the constitution" Despite my agreement I see a difference you don't. My position here is there is a difference when you are accusing someone of something. Don't you think there is a responsibility to support such accusations. I could make an ad saying that Govenor's support of a radical left wing idelogy is treasoness, would it be fair to you, to air such an ad without evidence?
BTW, It seems our discussion got a little out of hand yesterday. If I offended you I apologize. The olive branch is extended.
Oh so now it's about presentation? Nice shifting argument.
Please answer the question? What documents or proof could FreedomWatch provide to support the message they're trying to deliver in their ads? Prove to me that switching your vote on a bill is going to cause America to be attacked again?
Your the one hung up on other people not being able to prove to you that Fox didn't request documentation from FreedomWatch. Do you really think FreedomWatch or the org being fronted by Glover could provide real "facts" or documents to prove an opinion based ad? Most reasonable people, in light of the history of Fox Network and Murdoch's political views, would agree that asking for documents or proof on the Glover ad is very likely to be a pretext to not air an ad that doesn't fit the Fox view point. If you were being reasonable in this conversation you would at the very least acknowledge that instead of acting like we're discussing a network that doesn't have a political ax to grind. I'm not sure why your wasting time with "gotcha" moments in an attempt to prove yourself "correct", but it makes you come off as a person that just wants to argue for the sake of arguing, not someone interested in discussing a topic.
Again, thanks for the armchair psychoanalysis....I guess if it make you feel superior, then go for it.
I will not allow you to come in and dictate to me the direction of this discussion. It seems that if I don't do just that then I am automatically guilty of all of your accusations concerning me. What a wonderful expose' on your abilities......I guess. In any event, I don't see it as a shift, perhaps what you say is true about FOX. I would tend to agree with the political ax to grind. It doesn't take away from the fact that the ad in question is a specific indictment accusing the Bush Administration of "destroying the constitution". The other Freedom Watch ads are different in nature. Although opinion based they merely ask for support with the move on ad being an exception. to me those are no different that an ad saying that "our beer tastes better so buy it" or "our deodarant works better so buy it". The reality is that most commercials or advertising is opinion based. On the other hand an ad making a specific accusation deserves supporting evidence. My opinion. You obviously don't agree but I won't utilize that as a seething indictment of you personally. Another difference, if you will.
Another non-answer and your not telling the full story on the Glover ad. Try watching it a second time as it talks about charges of rendition, Guantanamo bay and torture. You continue acting as if it's referencing nothing more then Bush destroying the Constitution which anyone with eyes and ears can tell you is just not true. Are you going to answer my questions on the Freedom Watch ads or not? I provided you a link and specific question on each ad above and you continue to not answer. You keep stating that the ads are "different", but when I pressed you with specifics you started talking about presentation. I'm sorry would you like them to put in dialog from the mother of someone that was detained and tortured in Guantanamo Bay and then released without any charges?
All of the ads in question are inappropriate and in the same vein, but that isn't what this issue is about. It's about you pretending like the FreedomWatch ads are different then the Glover ad and Fox isn't being bias in showing one and not the other. The only difference is that Fox has no issue airing the extreme right wing ads and comes up with implausible reasons to decline an ad on the left. There is no way Freedom Watch could provide legitimate documentation or proof to show that American is going to be attacked again because politicians "changed" their votes on Iraq and you know it.Seething indictment on your personality? You continue to demonstrate your wonderful personality in each post, but please do continue.... I know that you can't help yourself and your never going to get the point.
Small text from above
All of the ads in question are inappropriate and in the same vein, but that isn't what this issue is about. It's about you pretending like the FreedomWatch ads are different then the Glover ad and Fox isn't being bias in showing one and not the other. The only difference is that Fox has no issue airing the extreme right wing ads and comes up with implausible reasons to decline an ad on the left. There is no way Freedom Watch could provide legitimate documentation or proof to show that American is going to be attacked again because politicians "changed" their votes on Iraq and you know it.One more time
All of the ads in question are inappropriate and in the same vein, but that isn't what this issue is about. It's about you pretending like the FreedomWatch ads are different then the Glover ad and Fox isn't being bias in showing one and not the other. The only difference is that Fox has no issue airing the extreme right wing ads and comes up with implausible reasons to decline an ad on the left. There is no way Freedom Watch could provide legitimate documentation or proof to show that American is going to be attacked again because politicians "changed" their votes on Iraq and you know it.The ad uses snippets from Bush quotes and then Glover says something about trials (inaudible) and the Bush Administration destroying the constituion. Pretty simple. The ads are different. I showed you that. Again, I won't allow you to set the tone and direction of this discussion. forget it. Stop trying. Give up. Got it?
Furthermore, where do you get "personality". It was " a seething indictment of me PERSONALLY"
I won't let you set the tone by making crap up, the glover ad is just as clear, factual and specific as many of the points in the FreedomWatch ads (which you continue to not address)
Silly me, I thought the "fair and balanced" slogan was directed at the content of the news programming. I never knew it was a mission statement for the entire corporation.
Did you know that Fox News required factual documentation on opinions expressed in some but not all political advertisements?
I know that is what they told this particlar organization. Do you have proof that they give airtime to unsupported opinion ads?
No. That's why I question your claim that "their decision here was clear in terms of why" they banned the ad.
UHHHHHHHHHHH???????? Their decision was clear in terms of why, because they wrote back indicating that they needed supportng documentation. I really don't mean to be obtuse here, but your argument is going in circles. I've made my point and it is based on the administrative response. You choose not to believe that and that is fine, although, I fail to see what you base that choice on.
Asking for documentation of proof that the constitution is being destroyed is simply disingenuous. I can’t help you if you can’t see that.
Are you serious? I guess you are the type to beleive anything you hear as long as it fits in your partisan world. It is ethically prudent to back up assertions that you make against another person. If they believe in this so much, they should have no problem supporting their opinion. I guess with your logic it would be o.k. to admonish FOX or any other network for that matter for not airing an ad that the freemasons work with the Illuminati to form a one world government.
It is ethically prudent to back up assertions that you make against another person.
You accused me of smoking pot a few post back. You should be careful of whom you choose to be libelous to.Sorry can't read your little print.
It says, "You accused me of smoking pot a few post back. You should be careful of whom you choose to be libelous to."
Indeed it does. Slander is the work of weak minds.
Is it slander or libel genius? Anyway, if you read carefully it said specifically :pt is bad for ya'" seems to me that one could construe that as a statement rather than an accusation. You're out of your league here dumplin'.
Go ahead; call me a drunk (which you just did earlier in the thread). I know why you're resorting to name-calling. That's enough for me.
I never called you a drunk. I wrote that reasoning with you is like reasoning with a drunk. Big difference there dumplin'. As for your response, I rest my case and stand by my previous comparison. Now go home, the boss won't like you spending all your time on the internet arguing with an old retired fart like me.
I love it when people have to announce they've won an argument.
If it isn't apparent to everyone reading the exchange and you have to state it ......you probably haven't
Thank you oh great one. Your omnipotent wisdom has amazed me.
Read the exchange Einstein, he admittingly made arguments based on assumption and never could back them up. I imagine I got under his skin a little as evidenced by HIS statements. If you want to come to his rescue fine, I am more than happy to discuss my view of this issue with you anytime, but your passive aggressive assault on me just shows you may be incapable of reasoned debate. You choose, Ill be waiting.
Einstein? Your proven in this thread by your bad behavior that no one can have a different view point then you do without you resorting insults and then declaring yourself the "winner". It's either a case of extreme insecurity or maybe mommy never taught you how to talk nice to other adults? I'll go with juvenile since you and my 4 year old niece behave in a very similar manner.
Don't worry little guy, no one will think any less of you (then they already do) because you had another temper tantrum and started calling people names again.
Maybe you should just declare yourself the winner and take your toys home?
Wow are you proud of yourself now? Should I give you 5 cents for your Peanuts style of psychoanalysis, Lucy?
For the sake of reason, I guess your diatribe proves that you are not above throwing insults as well. Would you like some hypocrisy with your fries?
It's o.k. you silly little boy, I understand your ineptness here. You shouldn't have to project that towards me to justify your own inadequacies. If it makes you feel better, I agree with you. There..... is that better?
I more then willing to response to others in kind when they're behaving badly and never stated otherwise. I'm also willing to have a reasonable conversation with people that I disagree with, which you obviously cannot do from your behavior towards others in this thread. Sorry to burst your bubble, but your little "gotcha" moment is moot.
Stop acting childish. No one is impressed.
.
Darn, I was hoping to impress you. I live for that you know.
Let us not forget who set the tone for OUR conversation. Your original post to me will in essence adjudicate that. That being said I will use your ideology and say that I will respond in kind, as I did. Now, whenever you are ready we can have a reasoned discussion. Again, your choice.
Your were acting like a jerk.
This is a public board and I don't need your permission to point that out.
I did not know someone made you the board monitor. Talk about shifting, did you or did you not set the tone for OUR discussion. When I replied in kind to your sarcastic post you accuse me of being sarcastic. Here is a little psychoanalysis for you despite my reluctance to do so, You need to do some excercises in self reflection. Accusing someone of acting the way you do is a strong indication of a personality disorder.
No one told you what you could or could not post. The same right that allows you to behave like a jerk allows me to point that out.
Get it?
.redrosid ytilanosrep a fo noitcadni gnorts a si od uoy yaw eht gnitca fo enoemos gnisuccA .niotcelfer fles ni sesicrexe emos od ot deen uoY
I love it when people have to announce they've won an argument.
If it isn't apparent to everyone reading the exchange and you have to state it ......you probably haven't
I agree, its like the commercial "If you have to say 'I'm the Man' it probably means you aren't 'the Man'.
Conversely if you say that someone else is a 'dumplin' it means you are 'the dumplin'.
Hey Ho, five cents for the man in the gallery, for his wonderful counter. I
took you for one who is above piling on. Individualism must be a thing of the past.....for some anyway.
Cool, I made a profit. I was just putting in my 2 cents and got back a nickel.
Sorry if it seemed like piling on.
No problem, your insight has been very helpful. Keep the nickel though... it's plugged.
So, are you saying that Fox did not run the Freedom's Watch ad, or that the ad was not an opinion ad?
"Do you have proof that they give airtime to unsupported opinion ads?"
Too easy, lets try SWIFT VOTE VETERANS FOR TRUTH...
Despite my disagreement with the Swift Boat ads, this is markedly different. I would encourage to watch the Glover ad in question. It is a blanket accusation. All it basically says is "the Bush administration is destroying the constitutiion" o.k. fine, all FOX is asking for is how. You should see the difference here. The swift boat ads were not thirty second ads just saying "John Kerry is a coward." Despite my disagreement and probably yours with the suporting evidence presented by the Swift Boat Veterans the fact remains they presented such evidence. I wish it were as simple as you make it out to be here, but alas, it isn't.
This is wholly disingenuous on your part. I win.
Yeaaahhhhhh!!! Congratulations. Feel better? How much sleep did you lose over this?
I slept the same way you post, like a 4-year-old.
Wow apparently you need to watch the Glover ad a second time..
It's talks about charges of rendition, Guantanamo bay and torture. It has parts of Bush speeches directly in referance to these items. How does that magically turn into "All it basically says is the Bush administration is destroying the constitution"
Can you please explain to me how this is different then the FreedomWatch ads? You failed to do so before and claimed that it was because the "presentation" was different.
Your perception is flawed. You act like this ad is somekind of balanced informational piece with everybody's benefit in mind. It's a partisan hit piece, you see no problem with it because you are blinded by your partisanship. I've watched the ad numerous times and it stinks of propoganda that Stalin would be proud of. It does nothing to ad to the civil political discourse that we sorely need in this country. It's thirty seconds of quotes, pictures, and Glover's opinion. Your attempt to portray this as some rosy ad that is complete with supported evidence is wrong. There is a difference in the ads, you don't want to see that because you are beholden to your political beliefs so tightly that nothing other than what is said in the Glover ad can be true. Perhaps you will expand and broaden your mind as you get older. Anyway, good luck. This conversation is going nowhere and we are doing nothing but trading insults in an attempt to prove each other wrong. Perhaps we can hash it around in another thread. I look forward to it.
I think that a sure sign of desperation is putting words in people’s mouths or maybe in your case it’s just another sign of your obvious immaturity? Let’s see name calling, whining when people respond in kind, self proclaimed victory, and inaccurately portraying the contents of the ad in question (like people aren’t going to watch it) and putting words in my mouth. Did I get them all?
I would really love for you point out where I endorsed the Glover ad? I was correcting your inaccurate summary of the ad content, it obviously states more then what you where trying to claim. That isn’t an endorsement by any stretch of the imagination, unless of course you’re looking for silly “gotcha” moments to prop yourself up again.
Since you've condemned the Glover ad and haven't said a word about the ad content from Freedom Watch should I assume that you suppor the message? In an adult conversation when you have a question you ask it... Are you saying that you think that FreedomWatch produces high quality ads devoid of propaganda?
I think we both know that the quality of the Glover ad isn’t at the heart of this issue. Both sets of ads are propaganda and there isn’t any amount of documentation in the world that is going to support opinion based statements of this nature. If you remember correctly, you’re the one stating that Fox isn’t showing bias by asking the Glover group to produce documents to prove that Bush is destroying the Constitution. You refuse to answer my questions on what supporting documents FreedomWatch could provide to support their comments, which are equally absurd. Please do tell, what documents could someone produce to support the notion that a politician “changing” their vote on Iraq is going to cause the US to be attacked? Or better yet that we can win the war, but only if everyone makes positive statements about the surge. If that isn’t propaganda then I don’t know what is. Basically we're suppose to keep our comments and criticism of the to ourselves or we might lose the war in Iraq. (shhhh, but don’t forget according to Freedom Watch that’s secretly what MoveOn.org really wants)
You actually have the audacity to lecture me on being partisan when you’re the one defending the Fox Network and the bias rational they used to deny a political attack ad from a point of view they don’t support? The point is that if Fox actually cared about the perception of bias they would play ads from either side or none at all (and the later would suit me just fine)
I’m done with you. Maybe when you decide to behave like an adult we can try to talk about this in a more reasonable manner.
If you arent fair to both sides you arent fair by definition of the word.
Are you saing that they should be fair as defined by you or MMFA with their advertising policies to satisfy the "fair and balanced" slogan? Quite a stretch since the slogan pertains solely to the NEWS REPORTING. It's a given that the slogan is laughable in FOX's case, but nonetheless, showing this ad would not satisfy the slogan nor would it magically add validity to their news reporting.
I am saying the question fair to YOU is disengenuous. I dont understand how REFUSING revenue is somehow fair to their stockholders but that is irrelevant. FAIR is fair. Either they are fair to both sides, in the context of political ads that would be fair to the left and right and holding them to the same standards. Yeah we both get Fox isnt going to do that but THAT is the point. They arent being fair to those who use OUR airwaves to disseminate their side of the story when they demand documantation for any lefty political ad and put on questionable if not outright false political ads from the right. The point here is that FAIR isnt that subjective in the context. They ARENT being fair and thats plain
That is your perception and it's rather subjective If I do say so myself. Perhaps the person who wrote the letter asking for dcumentation is lying. Perhaps FOX shows right wing opinion ads without the supporting documentation asked for in this particular case. I would think if that is so, MMFA would be all over that to support their case. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. The orginal question remains.
So Fox news account executive is LYING? Why would he do that and what is YOUR evidence this is so? Also how would MMFA have any access to internal documents about what documentation Fox asks for when taking more rightwing leaning ads, however I assume you didnt WATCH any Fox during the 04 elections when there were TONS of opinion ads that were obviously unsupported. They ran those 527 ads The LATimes even called them false. No this isnt even close. It is obvious they have a double standard here.
Wow....WOW!
So they don't even make some BS excuse that it is too politically charged, or that they don't like the group that is PAYING for the add? They just say that it is Danny Glover's opinion and that unless there is proof that the constitution is literally being destroyed, they won't run it? Then they close by offering to look at documentation that would prove the constitution is being destroyed, should you have it (but never say they will run the add regardless)?
LOL. I'm speechless. I am honest-to-god dumbfounded.
Sorry I'm running late today, but I'm so glad that Danny Glover is finally talking about the president trying to destroy the constitution.
Glover is so right to finally nail that brutal thug Hugo Chavez.
How, praytell, is Hugo destroying OUR constitution? Your right in pointing out, though, how very similar Hugo and Bush are when one is discussing power-hungry, ego-driven, nut-jobs and their attempts to sieze power illegally.
Great point, Truthy! I know it was unintentional, but you sounded intelligent for a moment there. Bush is kind of like a right-wing version of Hugo Chavez.
Thanks for pointing that out!
Except . . .
Chavez WAS actually elected, not merely once but twice . . . whereas Bungle lost Florida in the recount, and with it, the contested election of 2000 . . . and stole Ohio through the malfeasance of the voting machine vendors, with the complicity of various Repugnant elections officials, to avoid public knowledge that he also lost the election of 2004.
Chavez allowed the populace to vote as to whether he could run endlessly - but lost; Bungle may yet pull the anticipated "State Of Permanent Emergency" to avoid spending his remaining years in prison for his various and numerous crimes.
Sorry - I just assumed that Glover was upset with Hugo Chavez. I mean, doesn't Glover (with other Hollywood celebs) go over to Venezuala all the time? Glover had to be aware of the power grab being attempted by Chavez.
Funny thing - I did a google search and could not find one single time where Glover criticized Chavez or even Castro. Kind of makes you think that Glover isn't really interested in freedom or democracy. Maybe Glover is just an American-hating partisan hack.
Ok, I have to change my mind and support Fox for refusing to broadcast anything by that phony fake Glover!
Justice and Truth in the USA!!!!
Hey, I did a google search too, and I found out that Glover doesn't live in Venezuela or in Cuba, but lives right here in the good ol' US of A. I guess that explains why he is interested in the destruction of OUR constitution more than those of other countries.
If you really needed someone to explain that to you, you are either feigning ignorance just to be a jerk, or you are actually mentally handicapped. I hope its the former, since at least you have the power to change that.
What sort of moral retardation has you not understanding the very simple moral concept that we are most responsible for what WE do? If Glover HAD been criticising both Chaves and Castro would you demand that every time he do so he include criticism of Bush? Blair? Another silly attempt to tell everyone to look over there or there but not at the man behind the curtain. Subject change is basic trollwork
solon:
Let me explain this to you - Danny Glover (who makes millions of bucks a year in the USA) goes down to visit with Chavez every chance he gets. While Glover is visiting and applauding what Chavez does in Venezuela, Glover denounces and craps on the USA.
Then Glover comes back to the USA to make more millions of dollars and pretends to be interested in the Constitution -
What a fake. What a phony. What a scumbag is Glover.
He isnt a phony you are just ignorant. He likes Chavez so what? Chavez may not be Mr Democracy, though grading on the Central American curve he isnt nearly as bad as you sheeple who parrot whatever the oil corpoprations want you to say. He IS making programs that will help poverty which is something Glover cares about.
Bush is a catastrophe that walks like a man and judging by OUR standards he is attacking our constitution and there is NO reason to believe Glover isnt GENUNINELY concerned about that. You being too dumb to understand the distinction doesnt make Glover a phoney. The country nor Bush is GIVING Glover anything he is EARNING his millions with pure talent. So he doesnt OWE Bush anything.
solon:
I'm f*cked and nobody wants to work with me...
Well, what do you wanna hear, man? Do you wanna hear that sometimes I think about eatin' a bullet? Huh? Well, I do! I even got a special bullet for the occasion with a hollow point, look!
I'm getting too old for this...
Be sure to put down some plastic so your wife doesnt have to clean up the mess
Truthy, if you are serious, get some help.
http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org/help/default.aspx
Not to worry, I'm just a Lethal Weapon!
Except that was Gibson not Glover who said that
"We cannot approve the spot with it being Danny Glover's opinion that the Bush Administration is destroying the Constitution"
I'm pretty sure that "Cocoa Krispies are a delicious part of a balanced breakfast" is just Kelloggs' opinion.
I took a look at their website. Obviously it is what most would consider a radically leftist organization. Of course they are entitled to their opinion, but their advertisement (IMHO) goes way beyond being "pro-constitution".
Here are a few things they have been working on:
After fleeing Haiti, Emmanuel "Toto" Constant settled in the New York area and was later indicted on charges of grand larceny and fraud. In May of this year, CCR, the Center for Justice and Accountability,…
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) threatens free speech as part of a larger effort by corporate interests to use the terrorism label to constrain social activism. The Center for Constitutional Rights, in partnership with the Civil Liberties…
With your help, CCR will flood the Oval Office with copies of the Constitution this holiday season. If you sign this letter, CCR will send it along with a copy of the Constitution to the White House…
Demand that Bush and Cheney rescue the Constitution and the rights that it protects and proclaims before it is too late.
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) has filed a complaint against Donald Rumsfeld in France, charging him again with torture committed during the U.S. government’s so-called “war on terror” in Iraq and at Guantánamo.…
The more people that know, the better. A surprisingly small number of people know about these issues, and one of the most important and effective actions you can take is becoming an educator in…
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
AnotherAmerican.
I've signed all of the above under my real name, and the lot of you bums will not be entitled to. I salute the post for a pro-active approach!!
Government is suppose to be afraid of it's citizens, not the other way around in America.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
And you point is...??????
Btw, I was asking AnotherAmerican what his point was? Not you, Dan.
IowaDem,
My point was that this group does not seem to me to be simply a pro-constitution advocacy group. As an example, going to France to try file a complaint against Cheney and Rumsfield goes beyond being simply "pro-Constitution".
Abolishing the Animal Terrorism Enterprise Act seems to me to be another example.
They have their rights of free-speech as does Fox for declining to publish the ad. I have no problem with either. I think it is evident by the inflammatory nature of this advertisement that the extremist rhetoric and visuals that the Center for Constitutional Rights goes beyond simple advocacy.
You're sensitive aren't you?
I agree it's a pretty radical act to send copies of the Constitution to the President of the United States. Ouch! That's abusive, that's cruel and unusual punishment, it's coercive interrogation to send the Pres a simple reminder.
Oh, the indignity! Citizens organized in peaceful protest of the anti- freedom of expression, corporate Pres. Ooooh. That will leave a mark.
Dem some baaadaassss Progressives over there. Participatin' and demonstratin' democracy.
You seem like you might be the type who feels threatened pretty easy. You might not want to stray too far from your comfy status quo, don't let citizen activism get too close to ya, I don't believe your little heart could survive the strain. It's better to sit down, shut up and obey the corporate mandate. Much better. Pax Humana baby.
PLP,
Nice rant except I am not threatened at all by them. Frankly I could care less if they had their ad shown on every station and every network.
I am all for groups like these expressing themselves. I love free speech even when I disagree with it.
Again, nice rant. :-)
That's sweet. Thanks.
Hey I was right, you really are sensitive aren't you. I mean if my mild little observations and commentary counted as a rant to you, I suggest you don't turn your head too quickly, the blur may frighten you.
You could just close your eyes when you turn your head quickly, that way you won't need to be frightened. You seem to be good at that. Closing your eyes that is.
And hey thanks again for supporting Progressive values by suporting free speech.
PLP,
You are more than welcome! :-)
I appreciate your advice on dizziness. I'm sure it will come in handy. :-)
I think you might get an argument from a conservative or two that free speech is a progressive value.
That discussion is for a different day. I'm glad we are on the same page regarding free speech.
I enjoyed your comments. :-)
Maybe they thought Bush could use some extra toilet paper. That seems to be how he sees the Constitution anyway
touche' solon
I don't see your point, AA. Regardless of whether you agree with their opinions, it looks like the issues you linked are all related to the Constitution (except the Toto Constant thing, but I did not click the link to read further). They are arguing against the AETA on 1st amendment grounds, they are against torture because it is unconstitutional, etc.
It is not a major point of mine, more of an observation adn personal opinion. One can argue,as you did, and as I am sure the group does, that they are defending the Constitution through their actions.
Take a look at the groups that they list showing support. One, I think, (if my memory serves me,) is a Philippine Woman's rights organization. I guess there is a connection, but it seems a bit out there as far as I am concerned.
I noticed the first guy listed in "Who are we" is a former ACLU staffer of some sort. So if you are inclined, you can probably make the case, that the ACLU is pro-constitution too. However they seem to be pretty selective regarding which parts of the Constitution they support. I simply see the CCR as the same type of leftist group as the ACLU.
Of course I can make that argument, the are ALL about the constitution particularly the Bill of Rights.
Doesnt look radical to me. Looks mainstream liberal. I am especially angry about Constant. We gave him asylum when he was wanted by Haiti to stand trial for his death squad activities that caused the deaths of at least hundreds. NOW when he is looking at an unstable Haiti and perhaps a few years for fraud we want to send him back? We need to stop harboring terrorists like Constant
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
- IowaDem / Monday December 3, 2007 02:28:27 PM EST
Ta, Ta, civility, allways civility!
Happy Thoughts
Dan Grady
I'm kinda glad the ad didn't air on Fox...I would've missed it, since I never tune in to Fox. It occurred to me while reading this blog that the Spanish word for Fox is Zorro. You remember Zorro, the guy who his his true identity behind a mask. I wonder who is the real person behind the mask of Fox.
PLQ,
Great stream-of-consciousness going on there. :-)
My guess it is Guy Williams, but that dates me.
... Out of the night
when the full moon is bright,
comes the horseman
known as Zorro!
-)
Faux news, which in Spanish is zorro
Loves arbusto, his caca and oro
The Constitutional shredder
Will get a good header
Ads for liberals will get played no moro.
I am impressed with your grasp of Spanish! Funny!
Its a composite of a person, parts of R Murdock,R Alis, and anyone from the RNC.
No small irony, Faux holding an advertiser to a standard that none of their on -air bobbleheads can meet.
In a sense it's fortuitous(wingnuts ask mommy what it means) that Faux refused them. It would be a waste of money on the miscreants that watch that trashy channel.
It strains the truth to represent something from an obvious partisan advocacy group as a "pro-constitution ad." Why did they hire Danny Glover for the ad? Was Jane Fonda not available. How are we suppose to get people to take us seriously if we continue to show our cards?
The "varmint scavenging egg sucking broadcasting company" wants documentation of how the liars, crooks and thieves have stolen our rights and elections and the country has been sold to halliburton, homeland securities and investments and shady deals inc.LLC. I'm probably the only one who believes they are truly taking the high road and not running with every scurrilous tale being told about our illustrious leaders. Hurrah for the varmint broadcasting & propaganda corporation for the corporations of Dubai, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the" beacon of democracy" in the middle east. Semper Fi and "screw the truth."
The refusal is insulting. Obviously "destroying" of an intangible like the principles behind the constitution is difficult to "document" Also, until a particular act is judged unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, no one has "proof" or "documentation" that Bush has violated the Constitution, much less "destroyed" it.
So Fox's response was crafted in a particular way both to sound reasonable (after all...getting things documented is always prudent) and be a little "f*ck you" to the Center for Constitutional Rights all at the same time.
Fox has spent many years making their cultic audience lap up everything that gets said on the network. They can't start showing stuff like this...they have a certain integrity. In the cult, there is no "destroying" of the constitution, everything Bush has done is necessary and totally not scary at all. There are no alarming signs of fascism and anyone that tells you different is a commie rat. So, Fox has every right to preserve its cultic bubble however they see fit, and MMFA has every right to point it out because it is so very typical of them.
As a member of that american insurgent group MoveOn, I have told faux we would provide the evidence for the opinion ad if they could back up their opinions of ohreally, screaming savage, hummus, et al.
I never heard Media Matters complain about MSNBC's refusal to air pro-American ads.
I'm sure that you have some particulars in mind. Even if you manifest an example if you have one, your frame is faulty.
"Pro-American" would be that which supports the American principles of liberty and justice for all...not jingoistic flag waving to mask violations of liberty and justice.
As if these are anti American ads? You need professional help. Fox runs pro BUSH ads THAT is anti American
Do you really expect more from Fox. We really should feel for our freedom. We are living in some very frightening times. Our economy is very unstable to say the least, our liberties are under assault. We must beware and defend our freedom!
Fox News? Actually CNN and Headline News have no news either. Everything is commentary and some nitwit trying to get a laugh. Someone should start a 24/7 news show. I'd rather watch or hear the BBC than what we have.
not surprising that they chose not to air the commercial. theirs is one of the vehicles used to corrupt the contitution
Face It. fox is simply the Republican Party Shopping Channel. They pretend to do news, but they have one mission. And that is to be a mouthpiece for RNC and /or the White House when its in the hands of the GOP.
I applaud any boycott of the channel by the Dems, and any boycott of their advertisers by ANYBODY.
I agree with any media outlet running that advertisement. Danny Glover should stay in Hollywood and Shut up.
Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Check:
I wrestled with this decision - but I have finally had to make the call.
MMFA fails on this topic for TWO important reasons -
First, in labeling this as a "pro-Constitution ad", MMFA used completely biased and misleading terminology. It's only "pro-Constitution" if you agree with the radicals who are producing the ad.
Second, MMFA completely forgets to mention Glover's association with dictatorial thugs like Castro and Chavez which completely negates any "pro-democracy" message that might be displayed in the ad.
I have to call this one in favor of Fox News and against the ultra-radicals who made the ad.
This decision is FINAL.
All Rights Reserved
I know! That Hugo with his elections and referenda and all, what a horrible dictator!
First, in labeling this as a "pro-Constitution ad", MMFA used completely biased and misleading terminology. It's only "pro-Constitution" if you agree with the radicals who are producing the ad.
- justicetruthus8276
Nice use of actual misleading terminology while attempting to decry so-called misleading terminology.
"The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution..."
[link to ccrjustice.org]
Hi RadioShack –
We cannot approve the spot with it being your opinion that FNC iMag has perfect presents for everyone this holiday season. If you have documentation that the presents are indeed perfect and for everyone, we can look at that.
Sorry about that,
ErinHi Radio Shack,
It's Erin again. Sorry about the back and forth on this issue. We can approve your ad, but only if you agree to a few small revisions. If you agree to place a small flashing image that says MoveOn.org hates American and hopes all women in the US are wearing burkas by next year we can go ahead and run with it.
Merry Christmas
Erin
Fox News will never air anything challenging the Bush regime even if they were leading us off to the gas chambers.
How much more proof do they need? While they vilified everything Clinton did, and they still do, Fox refuses to see the damage caused by Bush and the entire GOP. When the bills start coming in very shortly, they will have run out of excuses as to who caused what.
I dont see this as a big deal at all. In fact, I think people are just complaing to complain (as Arnold put it, during the fires).
So what if a "news" channel is owned by a company, whos in business to make money. They have every right to be selective in what they air, just like any other television station, or radio station does. I personally do not agree with the ad, as its all accusational with no proof, but that doesn't mean Glover shouldn't be able to voice his opinion in public. However FOX News channel is not public, but corporate. In terms of showing ads & programs that appeal to their viewers, I'm fairly certain that even if the ad was backed up with documentation, that Fox would air it because they have a current and target audience who that ad would not appeal to....its not worth it to them to risk losing viewers. They aren't losing money if that ad doesn't air because another ad will take its place and still count for income.
I dont see this as any type of political mess to be argued with, but more less of people complaining to complain because someone doesn't agree with Glovers assertions or doesnt want to show his assertions on their channel. Every television network is selective in their topics. If the MoveOn.org Patreaus ad was on television, Fox would not show it and I wouldnt blame them. But if the republicans issues an "all democrats are dirty liars" ad, it wouldnt be shown on CNN or the NY Times either. This is more of a "who cares" topic.