CBS Censorship

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:19 am

FWIW, I've been lead to believe that the "Bush White House" commercials will be PSAs and non-political in nature. A good example will be the inevitable "people who purchase pot aid terrorists" message and such as that.

Now, while I enjoy a good "Bush is Hitler" commercial (note: I'll re-address that after actually viewing the commercial) as much as the next guy, I do believe that CBS is a business first and foremost. As such, I do believe they have a right to make the call on what commercials are shown during their programs. It's business, not censorship.

Now, if they start to censor their news programs in an obviously biased way, they may have a case.

EDIT: Like a friggin blind man, I read your post and just totally missed the link to the actual commercial. I'll check it out when I get home.

kurupt · Post by **kurupt** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 6:55 am

if they are censoring that, they should have ot censor nike commercials too.

T-Bone · Post by **T-Bone** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 9:22 am

I am really tired of all of the alarmist cries of censorship. Like Pebkac said, CBS is a business and they have the right to pick and chose what they air based on the anticipated viewer response.

Censorship would be the government shutting down Moveon.org for speaking out against the establishment. If Moveon.org wants to fund their own tv station they can air â??Bush is Hitlerâ?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 9:35 am

I think they will be glad to play it except during the superbowl. The superbowl is known for introducing funny and inovative ads and there is nothing funny or inovative about political spin. Bush is a very polarizing guy right now with the election looming, to show that ad would no doubt piss off half of the audiance instantly...not wise during a program that has no political content or supports one side over the other.

kurupt, interesting take, the nike reference.
I don't see the parallel between a company that exploits child labor for profit and a liberal orginazations fantasy piece that exploits the ignorance of its voters with the notion of chid labor as the result of policy it disagrees with.

Besides, how can the conservatives put all those school kids to work paying off the deficit when they already starved them to death with their school lunch cuts...or poisoned their drinking water...

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:51 am

Good points Will. However I think you may be missing the mark on the child labor. I don't think the ad is saying that kids will literally have to go to work. I think it is just saying that future generations will bear the financial burden of the deficit. Nice inflamatory images though huh?

Darkside Heartless · Post by **Darkside Heartless** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:57 am

All that debt isn't from Bush alone, it's been accumulating over the years. Why blame it on Bush?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 11:16 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by [NuB] Dedman:
Good points Will. However I think you may be missing the mark on the child labor. I don't think the ad is saying that kids will literally have to go to work. I think it is just saying that future generations will bear the financial burden of the deficit. Nice inflamatory images though huh?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea, I know, that's why I said: " a liberal orginazations fantasy piece that exploits the ignorance of its voters with the notion of chid labor as the result of policy..."

meathead, it's true Bush didn't create the deficit but he sure is doing his part to add to it without any sign of reversing the trend.

kurupt · Post by **kurupt** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 11:27 am

what part of "CBS refuses to air the ad" is not censorship?

censor - transitive verb; to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

thats exactly what they did, they are censoring the ad from their network. it doesn't have to mean it is outlawed by the government for it to be censored.

my reference to nike commercials purely focuses on a well known fact; that children roughly the same age as depicted in the ad are used to make nike products (not just nike, other companies do this too). so basing the censorship on the fact that it depicts minors slaving away, they should censor more than just that commercial.

I don't know if they are not airing it because of that, but i bet you it is a very important factor in the decision not to air it. nike was just the first thing that came to mind when i watched the ad.

T-Bone · Post by **T-Bone** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 11:43 am

You are right Kurupt. I guess when I hear someone cry censorship government censorship is what pops to mind. My apologies.

So CBS is censoring the add. But my point is that it's their station and they have the right to air what they want.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 11:58 am

I guess it's hard for some of us to see it as censorship because there is no right to use CBS's network. CBS is in the business of selling what it broadcasts so they decide what will please it's viewers.
I don't think of it as censorship when they don't broadcast comercials for their competitor, or movies and TV shows that they decide won't please their viewers.

It may technically fall under the definition of 'censorship' but not under the umbrella of oppressive actions designed to silence free speech because as I said, there is no right to be heard on their network.

T-Bone · Post by **T-Bone** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:04 pm

Yeah, what Will said. He's so much more eloquent than me.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:06 pm

to me it sounds like that decision was influenced by the religious right.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:42 pm

The networks often refuse to air spots they consider controversial. Over the years, they have turned down ads that were pro-life, pro-choice, pro-guns, anti-guns, and most other hot button issues. Truth is, the networks make these kinds of decisions all the time.

Refusal to air ad about arming pilots:
http://suppressednews.com/newsitems/med ... XsDKr.html

Refusal to air Mother Teresa "right to life" ad:
http://www.gargaro.com/mother_teresa/censored.html

Refusal to sell Ross Perot air time:
http://www.uwsa.com/pipermail/uwsa/1997q2/026641.html

CBS refuses to air PETA ad during Superbowl:
http://www.peta.org/feat/superbowl/

Refusal to air anti-SUV ads:
http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cf ... -03&cat=AN

Refusal to air "buy nothing, shoppers are pigs" ad:
http://adbusters.org/campaigns/bnd/toolbox/wsj.html

etc, etc, etc.

It's nothing new, and completely within their rights.

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:10 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by kurupt:
 what part of "CBS refuses to air the ad" is not censorship?

censor - transitive verb; to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

thats exactly what they did, they are censoring the ad from their network. it doesn't have to mean it is outlawed by the government for it to be censored.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously, moveon.org is trying to exploit the double meaning of censorship: the neutral definition you cited and the dreaded "government censorshiop". Such tactics lead me to think that moveon.org is infinitely more Hitleresque than Bush.

kurupt · Post by **kurupt** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:13 pm

i would definately do the same as CBS is doing if i were in charge, but as the TV watcher i'd really like ot see that ad make it on during the superbowl. i think its clever.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 2:33 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Will Robinson:
 Yea, I know, that's why I said: " a liberal orginazations fantasy piece that exploits the ignorance of its voters with the notion of chid labor as the result of policy..."

meathead, it's true Bush didn't create the deficit but he sure is doing his part to add to it without any sign of reversing the trend.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok. You got me. I was taking what you said a touch to literal. I blame this cold that is keeping me home from work.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 4:01 pm

I don't understand how they can push their right-wing propaganda/anti-drug commercials (remember the "people who smoke pot support terrorism commercials from last year) and not allow this commercial to air. Either way, it is their right to not allow this sort of thing, but if they're not going to have "controversial" commercials, then they shouldn't allow those other ads either.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 5:27 pm

Beowulf, perhaps you don't remember Huffington's "people who drive SUVs support terrorism" ads that were also allowed to air.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 12:36 pm

Where is the Super Bowl being played this year? Who was the former governor? CBS is not worried about controversy...they succomb to the nasty GOP

Remember the Reagans?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 12:58 pm

CENSORSHIP! ITS A RIGHT-WING CONSPIRECY! WE MUST ALL BANNED TOGETHER AND FITE THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT! HOW DARE THEY REFUSE TO AIR THE BUSH=HITLER COMMERSHEL? IF THEY DON'T RUN THIS AD THEY SHOULDN'T RUN ANY OTHERS BECAUSE I CANT SEA THE DIFFERENCE! CHENEY=EVIL, AND CBS = CORPORATION = EVILER.

Darkside Heartless · Post by **Darkside Heartless** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 1:49 pm

The "religous right" started America, without it only Native Americans would be here, maybe the U.S. would be split between France, Britan and who know who else.
Besides, the government is technicly a Republic, not a Democrasy

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 11:55 pm

I don't get it.

I get the feeling some people here feel that media producers shouldn't have the right to say no to anything.

if that were true, we wouldn't have left or right-wing media, just a pathetic pile of crap.

Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Admiral Thrawn** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 12:14 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>CBS refuses to air PETA ad during Superbowl:
http://www.peta.org/feat/superbowl/ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank goodness!!!

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 1:31 am

I don't really see anything wrong with that commercial personally. You could just edit out "Bush's deficit" and replace it with "America's deficit" and it would be just fine. Lets face it, though ol GW has added to it a great deal, it is NOT something he started and despite what the opposing politicians and media would like the American public to believe, getting Bush out of office will NOT instantly fix the deficit.

The next President will add to it, and the one after that. Maybe not as much as Bush, or maybe just as much, or maybe more, we won't really know until another President is elected. Still, this is something that we, our children and our children's children will end up contributing to help pay off. However if money keeps circulating the way it has and inflation continues like it has, I don't see that the country will ever rectify it in the long run.