CBS has a political agenda

[darrelld]

During this year's Super Bowl, you'll see ads sponsored by beer companies,
tobacco companies, and the Bush White House.(1) But you won't see the
winning ad in MoveOn.org Voter Fund's Bush in 30 Seconds ad contest. CBS
refuses to air it.(2)

Meanwhile, the White House and Congressional Republicans are on the verge of
signing into law a deal which Senator John McCain (R-AZ) says is
custom-tailored for CBS and Fox,(3) allowing the two networks to grow much
bigger. CBS lobbied hard for this rule change; MoveOn.org members across
the country lobbied against it; and now our ad has been rejected while the
White House ad will be played. It looks an awful lot like CBS is playing
politics with the right to free speech.

Of course, this is bigger than just the MoveOn.org Voter Fund. People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) submitted an ad that was also
rejected.(4) But this isn't even a progressive-vs.-conservative issue. The
airwaves are publicly owned, so we have a fundamental right to hear
viewpoints from across the ideological spectrum. That's why we need to let
CBS know that this practice of arbitrarily turning down ads that may be
"controversial" -- especially if they're controversial simply because they
take on the President -- just isn't right.

To watch the ad that CBS won't air and sign our petition to CBS, go to:
http://www.moveon.org/cbs/ad/

If you want to skip the ad and just sign the petition, go to:
http://www.moveon.org/cbs/

We'll deliver the petition by email directly to CBS headquarters.

You also may want to let your local CBS affiliate know you're unhappy about
this decision.

Remember, a polite, friendly call will be most effective -- just explain
to them why you believe CBS' decision hurts our democracy.

CBS will claim that the ad is too controversial to air. But the message of
the ad is a simple statement of fact, supported by the President's own
figures. Compared with 2002's White House ad which claimed that drug users
are supporting terrorism,(5) it hardly even registers.

CBS will also claim that this decision isn't an indication of political
bias. But given the facts, that's hard to believe. CBS overwhelmingly
favored Republicans in its political giving, and the company spent millions
courting the White House to stop FCC reform.(6) According to a
well-respected study, CBS News was second only to Fox in failing to correct
common misconceptions about the Iraq war which benefited the Bush
Administration -- for example, the idea that Saddam Hussein was involved
with 9/11.(7)

This is not a partisan issue. It's critical that our media institutions be
fair and open to all speakers. CBS is setting a dangerous precedent, and
unless we speak up, the pattern may continue. Please call on CBS to air ads
which address issues of public importance today.

Sincerely,
--Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn.org Team
January 22nd, 2003

P.S. Our friends at Free Press have put together a page which explains
simply how CBS and the FCC rule change are integrally linked. Check it out
at:
http://www.mediareform.net/media/

Footnotes:

1. "Who's Buying What At the Super Bowl," Ad Age, 1/20/04
http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=39561

2. CBS fax to MoveOn.org Voter Fund, 1/14/04

3. "Democrats Fold on 39% TV Cap Fight", Broadcasting and Cable, 1/21/04
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...=Breaking+News

4. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
http://www.peta.org/feat/superbowl/

5. "New Media Campaign Stresses Link between Drugs and Terrorism," U.S.
Dept. of State
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02020501.htm

6. OpenSecrets.org: "CBS Television Network Soft Money Donations"
http://www.moveon.org/r?482

7. "Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War," PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Ir..._03_Report.pdf

[joker_927]

I really didn't like the commercial either, and I'm not a "GO BUSH" person.

It's not Bush's deficit. It's always been there, hell it was 3.3 Trillion a while ago. Bush may of not helped it any, but I'm for fairness, and it isn't all his fault.

Is the ad FOR anything? Or is it just bashing bush?

[darrelld]

The ad is for electing a new president.
And yes that is the deficit created since Bush was "not" elected. It wasn't rejected by CBS for being untrue.

[Atomic Rooster]

I don't consider the refusal to air a "paid" advertisement as "censorship of political debate". If you want to hear
"viewpoints from across the ideological spectrum", watch PBS.

[jmebonner]

I do like the concept of the commercial. Some good thinking there! However, I doubt Bush has created every cent of that one trillion deficit. I like how all the dems act like bush wrote a thousand checks for a billion dollars each. Last time I checked, granted, it's been a while, Just about everything that gets spent goes to a vote in the house and senate, right? Even if the majority is one way or 'tother, I don't think a simple majority is used very often to decide spending. So, obviously some dems have a part in the whole mess...

[brandon184]

I like the ad. Because it's true.

The PETA ad, on the other hand, is plainly inappropriate.

[MTAtech]

Originally posted by joker_927
I really didn't like the commercial either, and I'm not a "GO BUSH" person.

It's not Bush's deficit. It's always been there, hell it was 3.3 Trillion a while ago. Bush may of not helped it any, but I'm for fairness, and it isn't all his fault.

I believe you are confusing the deficit with the national debt. For the record, Clinton's administration had a surplus budget of about $500B that turned into a $500B deficit under Bush ($700B if you include the raiding of the Soc Sec fund to cover part of the deficit.) Bush is indeed accountable because the deficit is entirely due to tax-cuts and increased spending - the Republican Congress gave Bush everything he asked for.

Now, the debt was $1 Trillion at the begining of Reagan's Presidency. After 12 Yrs of Reagan and Bush 1 it was $4Tril. After 8 years of Clinton, it was only $1.5T larger and had leveled. It has exploded under Bush, rising nearly as much in Bush's 3 years as Clinton's eight. If Bush is re-elected and his tax-cuts made permanent, the debt will be $11 Tril easily - just in time for the baby-boomers to start tapping Social Security. Check out this chart

[jmebonner]

Clinton also had the tech boom and bush had the fall of that overinflated sector and the trade tower debacle, whihc has an immediate impact on the market.

However, I'm not blind to the fact that something absolutely needs to be done about spending. I also was disappointed that he did not say anything about the WMD's in his sotu speech. However, he's still the closest to my ideals and political standpoints, so I suppose I'll take the good w/ the bad.

[Mr. Goodbytes]

Working families, everybody except rich people are miserable. There are no jobs and there's no health insurance, schools do not have any money. Kids in school are starving because of the school lunch cuts back in 1995. Social Security is almost bankrupt, and Bush wants to take that money, and give it to Halliburton so they can go to Mars and get oil. Medicare is also at risk. Everybody is losing their health insurance except the rich and nobody is doing anything about it. Medicaid is at risk. We need more welfare. Only rich people got the tax cuts, and they didn't even want the tax cuts, they don't even need the money. Republican special interest groups are too powerful. Corporations have too much influence with Republicans.

Okay, the economy may be better, but it's better the wrong way. Rich and powerful forces are out to get you. They're out to get your kids, minorities, particularly Hispanics are hardest hit this year, and, oh, yeah, Halliburton is evil. We don't have friends. Nobody likes us because George Bush is arrogant and won't say nice things to the French. We're scared to vacation in Paris now. We love going to Paris, but only people like Wesley Clark can go there anymore, and it's unfortunate because the French hate us and we want the French to love us but the French hate us because they hate Bush because Bush doesn't care about the French or anything that comes from there, and we wish the French loved us, but the French hate and this makes us feel horrible. And as a result of the French hating us, we're not safe. We can't depend on anybody in this country to protect us, because we want to get rid of the military. We want to get rid of the threat we pose to the rest of the world so that the French will like us. We're perfectly willing for the French and those of the United Nations to defend us. We don't have any homeland security, because police and firemen don't have any resources. We don't have any more fire trucks, we don't have any more police cars, George Bush tricked us into going to war, and all the money for this country and the children and Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security is being spent in Iraq. We should have never gone to Iraq, we shouldn't be in Iraq.

The UN won't help because George Bush won't say nice things to the UN. Oh, yeah, we Democrats are strong on national security. We always have been, and we believe in a strong America. You can count on us. Just listen to the words we say and you can count on the fact that we believe in a strong America. So long as we're running it, and the military gets weakened, and the CIA and the FBI can't connect dots, that's the way we want things to be, but Bush is so filled with hatred and rage that he wants America spying on us because Bush thinks we're the traitors, Bush thinks we're the criminals, Bush thinks we're the Halliburtons and so he's taking all the resources and spying on us and we don't like being spied on, we want control of this government again so we can start spying on you. Ever since Bill Clinton left, life has been awful. Life sucks ever since Clinton went away. We're good people. Republicans are bad people. Vote for us. Save the children. The End.

Isn't that pretty close to moveon.org's platform? Liberals in power, and those displaced from power, are just getting boring. It's the same bunch of lines every year. It'll be nice to watch them get fleeced this year while their party goes down in flames thanks to Clinton. He wants to retain sole control of the party and its diminishing power. Go Clinton.

Anyway, I have problems with Bush's domestic policy. It's like Nixon on steroids and ephedrine. This immigration bill is going to bite him in the backside, and he's helping create programs that we don't need, like the all-encompassing senior drug bill. But it still puts the democrats in a bind, which i like to see. While they complain about his spending, they turn to the other camera and say he's not doing enough in each of his proposals. It's like they can't find a foothold. Then they think they have something with WMD's, but they'd have to call themselves liars too if they wished to actually debate the topic rather than just call Bush a cowboy, warmongering, oil-crazed doofus/liar. Can you guess who said this last February?:

I agree with President Bush – he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb.

Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. So I want to be clear: Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate – it is a given.

What about this quote in september of 2002?:

There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self-defense ... Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary ...

When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat ... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons ... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.

... I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as pre-emptive ... This is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this ... There's no question that ... there have been such contacts (between Iraq and al-Qaida). It's normal. It's natural.

These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that, regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections, that Saddam Hussein is a threat.

I'll give you the source of the next quote, as it's a lesser-known voice at the moment: Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

Damn that Bush!!! He's misled us all!!!

[whitebeard21]

If we are In Iraq to create a democracy why will Rummy not let them have an election like they want to have and are demonstrating for right now.