MoveOn.org has trouble reaching the airwaves, again

April 4, 2006

MoveOn.org political action committee unveiled a hard-hitting new ad campaign this week, called “Red-Handed.” It specifically takes aim at four vulnerable GOP House incumbents — Reps. Nancy Johnson (Conn.), Deborah Pryce (Ohio), Chris Chocola (Ind.) and Thelma Drake (Va.) — and accuses them of selling out to energy interests.

Against ominous background music, a narrator intones, “Instead of protecting us, [name of member] has been caught red-handed, protecting oil-company profits while we pay more at the pump.”

For Johnson, the ad states, “She accepted more than a quarter-million dollars from energy companies, and she voted against bills that would have penalized those companies for price gouging.” […] “Tom DeLay. Dick Cheney. Jack Abramoff. And now, [name of member]. Another Republican caught red-handed,” the ad says as the lawmaker’s hand is illustrated turning red.

MoveOn’s PAC budgeted $1.3 million to buy time on 33 network affiliates in the lawmakers’ home markets, except two NBC-owned affiliates have rejected the ads.

“We expected Republicans to respond, but we didn’t expect two local NBC stations owned by GE to refuse to run our ad,” the MoveOn PAC said in a written statement yesterday. […] The PAC insinuated that the refusal to carry the ads was politically motivated: “This smells of NBC pursuing its own political agenda at the expense of free speech and balance.”

Neither NBC nor the affiliates have explained exactly why the ads were rejected, but reportedly there were concerns about MoveOn’s accuracy. It’s a pretty weak excuse; there are some subjective questions in the ad, but nothing false.

On a related note, it’s frustrating to see just how often ads with a progressive message are kept off the air.

Last week, for example, all of the major TV networks rejected an ad by the United Church of Christ that told viewers, “No matter who you are or where you are on life’s journey, you’re welcome here.” In November, Fox News wouldn’t run anti-Alito ads. Also last year, MoveOn.org raised enough money to buy an ad during the Super Bowl, but CBS rejected it, noting its “long-term policy not to air issue ads anywhere on the network.” Just a few weeks prior, CBS and NBC refused advertising from the UCC because the church’s open, tolerant message of inclusion was labeled “too controversial.” Last summer, a Utah television station (owned by Clear Channel) refused to air an anti-war ad featuring Cindy Sheehan.

I guess gaining access to the “public’s airwaves” can be challenging sometimes.

Are these networks refusing to air commercials from conservatives also? If everyone is getting the same treatment, then at least they’re being consistent, even if we don’t agree with their choices.

I really don’t understand the one about the UCC, though. exactly who are they protecting from its “controversial” message? Controversial to whom?

  • I wonder how quickly the same stations would censor ads questioning whether the stations are discriminating against political and religious views they don’t agree with. Since these are corporations, their “agreement” with an issue is profit-based, so then connect the dots to the big spenders pulling the strings.

    While I doubt they’d air, such a direct assault (or threat of one) might force their hand.

  • They ain’t “the public’s airwaves” any more. The frequency spectrum and the air it travels through are now a commodity to be sold to — and controlled by — the highest bidder.

  • Don,
    Show single parents, gay couples, and other undesirables as being human and worthy of compassion, and not abominations dripping with sin and evil, and most people won’t fear and hate them.

  • Yikes. To someone of an, um, older generation, this is shocking. It’s harder being older and remembering we once had a country that was invested in democracy.

    The question is, what to do? I don’t think this should be allowed to pass without some exquisite torture prepared for, say, advertisers or the stations’ executives. Might be interesting to know more about the individual affiliates.

  • People are surprised to discover that GE is one of the most radically far-right, authoritarian corporations in America? It’s something folks in Hollywood have been learning ever since GE took over NBC. Ask David Letterman what he thought of GE when he negotiated with them.

    These pigs are just like that Texas bankrobber who owns SBC-now-ATT who plans to charge for access to his internet service and let “ability to pay” determine what’s up on the net.

    I keep telling you, go watch “Network.” It’s all there.

  • I’m hazy on this — does the FCC license these companies and oversee whether they’re meeting their obligations? I seem to remember that, pre-cable, because the airways only allowed for a limited number of channels (sorry, I can’t remember the technical bits), the companies allowed to lease those airways needed to get their licenses renewed and follow rules, such as a certain number of free charitable ads, etc.

    So are those in the FCC Bush appointees? And overseen by Congress? Do we have an independent board that monitors such things? If it’s not independent, is there anything we could do in the future to make it more independent in the future?

  • “Show single parents, gay couples, and other undesirables as being human and worthy of compassion, and not abominations dripping with sin and evil, and most people won’t fear and hate them.”

    I think this is a good example of, “What would do?”

  • I think Catherine make an excellent point. The Repubs were allowed to show those absurd “wolves in the forest” commercials during the last election, so there’s definitely a double standard going on here.

    It would be very interesting if someone were to do an in-depth investigation of who exactly the stockholders and investors of the major media outlets are. They probably have different corporate identities but I would bet that if you follow the trail far enough they would lead back to the same source.

    And that would be worth an anti-monopoly action by the FCC, or some law suits at the very least.

  • I wonder how this can still be defended as “free speech.” I’ve always thought the defense of outrageous campaign spending as “free” speech was absurd, given the cost of advertising on the tv/radio media, but now they are limiting access as well. I think progressives should get behind a new strategy around campaign finance: no political commercials whatsover with a requirement that, during election seasons, all stations and networks must grant a certain amount of time to candidates during specific primetime hours, in addition to debate times. It sounds impossible, but the Brits don’t have tv ads, and I think the populace (especially in battleground states) would love the relief from the constant barrage. Just suggesting it would help the discussion.

    Meanwhile, I really appreciate the efforts the UCC is making. The Rethugs just can’t stand the idea of liberal Christians.

  • Clear Channel is also blocking Lois Murphy from posting campaign adds in the Philadelphia area for her congressional race.

    Democracy cannot survive without the free exchange of ideas. A system that allows the Swift Boat adds to be displayed, but blocks something like the UCC adds is corrupt and anti-democracy. This is one of the first things Democrats need to fix, if we can ever get back in power again. It really should be one of the top 2 or 3 priorities, though I’m afraid it will not be adequately addressed.

  • I’m hazy on this — does the FCC license these companies and oversee whether they’re meeting their obligations?

    I could be wrong, but I believe that most major networks use to be required to air a certain amount of educational/public service programming per week. Not only has the time requirement gone down throughout the years, but I believe that Saturday Morning Cartoons, nothing more than entertaining commercials for toys and product spin-offs, are considered “educational” programming. With the digital transition I believe that the stations are being allocated their bandwith, bandwith that could be worth a lot of money, for free with basically no public service requirements. It’s been awhile since I read it(hence my fuzziness), but I recommend Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times by Robert W. McChesney

    • Comments are closed.