CBS is refusing to air "Child's Pay", the winning ad from the "Bush in 30 seconds" contest, because they say it's "too controversial". Yet they'll air ads from George Bush without question. Is this ad "too controversial"? Heck no! It raises a valid question, one that we should all be asking ourselves.
CBS is deliberately censoring this from the view of the American public. Why? Why would they want to keep this and other anti-Bush ads off the air?
Because Bush is pushing through legislation that will hugely benefit CBS. That's why.
Does anyone else find this a little creepy?
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think corrupt is a better word than creepy. But what is the legislation? I haven't seen "Child's Pay" yet because I don't want to download quicktime.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I was actually going to post about this, you beat me to the punch....
I can't believe this. It's one thing if they refuse to air all political ads, but if they're airing pro-Bush ads they better be airing negative ones as well.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually wouldn't mind a network deciding to air no attack ads at all. But if they're going to allow anti-Dean or Anti-Kerry or anti-anbody-except-Bush that's a BIG problem.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I do know that the Bush administration was trying to modify FCC rules to allow media companies to grow larger than they are currently allowed to. But as far as I know that was defeated in Congress....I'm not sure if Bush is still pushing for it, or a modified version of it. But if he is, it's a huge benefit to CBS.
Or is there entirely new legislation I haven't heard about?
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka-- the ad shows a number of small children (6-9 yrs) doing adult jobs-- manufacturing, sewing, retail, and then asks, "Who is going to pay for Bush's $1 trillion deficit?" Cut to more scenes of cute kids doing manual labor, etc. . .
The ad is not, IMO, controversial.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that's a terrible ad, regardless of your politics.
(edit: I guess I should elaborate. It's inflammatory and intellectually irresponsible. Although I guess other attack ads aren't much better. But this one really stretches it.)
It's an annoying subscription-based site, so here's the gist:
quote:The appropriations bill, now expected to be approved Thursday, would cap the national reach of one company’s stations at 39% of television homes.
Sen. John McCain, one of the Republicans opposing the package, spent nearly an hour on the Senate floor Wednesday attacking the bill as a pork-laden budget buster.
He said the new ownership cap is a prize for CBS and Fox, which would have to sell TV stations if the original 35% limit was enacted. "Why did they pick 39%? So these two conglomerates could be grandfathered."
quote:President Bush had threatened to veto the legislation if it included a more severe restriction on TV station ownership then the one included in the bill. Both Republicans and Democrats supported a measure that would have prevented one company from reaching more than 35% of the national TV audience. The White House, with the aid of the House Republican leadership, had forced that number up to 39%. In June, the FCC raised the limit to 45% when it agreed, on a 3-2 party-line vote, to liberalize most of the nation's media-ownership rules.
quote:The 39 percent limit allows two media giants – Viacom Inc., owner of CBS and UPN, and News Corp., owner of Fox – to keep all their television stations. Through mergers and acquisitions, both had exceeded the 35 percent cap.
Viacom and News Corp. spent a combined $5.5 million on lobbying between Jan. 1, 2002, and June 30, 2003, and $2.3 million on campaign contributions for the 2002 and 2004 elections.
Bush has received more in campaign donations from the broadcast industry than any other federal candidate since Jan. 1, 2003. He took in $158,450 – more than 10 percent of the industry's $1.4 million in donations for the 2004 campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group.
posted
Coming from moveon.org, which comes off as much left wing as they accuse the "other party" as being too right wing, I can see why CBS would say no.
Wow, even their complaint about being told no seems a bit extreme.
posted
Actually, I think it's a brilliant ad that shows the reality of building a budget deficit using images that invoke emotional responses in the majority of people.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like President Bush but that ad didn't bother me. Those are reasonable questions to ask.
The moveon.org complaint about not CBS's "censorship" was ridiculous, though. They can take whatever advertisements they want.
edited to add that the other movies in the Bush in 30 seconds contest were far more incendiary than the one that won. On the one side, I almost wish they'd tried to get those on the networks instead.
posted
Reasonable questions? Ha! Makes it look like child labor laws will be broken. Looks like sweat shops with kids in them. And guess what! We’ve run a debt since WWII. Sheeze…… Get real. Moveon.org is a ridiculous group. But I am endorsing Dean for the 2004 Democratic nomination. I hope he’ll take the motto for the 2004 campaign and run with it ”Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you!” Thank God for George Bush. I can’t imagine Gore fighting the war on terror. And he’s someone you can trust who doesn’t lie unlike Clinton. That’s why Dem hate Bush so. They’re jealous that the GOP has someone that everyone can be proud of.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Definitely a fair question, and one that I am sadly unqualified to answer. And by that I mean, I can't sit here and argue why the conclusions that the ad draws are wrong (when have I ever been political here). But...
Well, for one thing, the lighting isn't like that in real life. Honestly, when's the last time you shopped in a grim-looking supermarket? And then, all the kids are these white, blond-haired angels. As if the minority children took all the good jobs.
Okay, so I'm being slightly fecetious. But only to compensate for the fact that that ad is so unfunny. My first impression of it was not "Gee, they might have a point." It was, "Gee, that was in poor taste."
It's not an intelligent attack against Bush's economic policy. It only makes people angry one way or the other.
It's an attack add. How can it be anything more than demagoguery?
(and plus I had a good thing going with the long words that start with an "in" prefix (how often do you pass up a chance to string those words together))
quote:Well, for one thing, the lighting isn't like that in real life. Honestly, when's the last time you shopped in a grim-looking supermarket? And then, all the kids are these white, blond-haired angels. As if the minority children took all the good jobs.
That little white, blond-haired angel with the black skin and dreads must have been a great actress! Excellent make-up work, too. Kudos to all!
Honestly, jehovoid. Lighting?
I've never been so ashamed to admit that I was once a Republican. It's become the party of bullies and corporate corruption, and it sickens me to watch this country torn apart by its wealthy few.
posted
It sickens me to see this country torn apart by the lazy and liars. All libs like to do is tear down the accomplishments of others and demand that success be shared equally with the lazy. If you don’t work, you don’t eat. We should be looking to give hand ups not hand outs. Bullies? Where do you get that? Are you trying to blame the GOP for corporate greed? Oh… I get it. Rich guys run these big companies and of course all rich people are republicans. Of course, how silly of me. I guess someone forgot to tell Rockefeller and Kerry that when they signed up to be democrats. I remember seeing a news story on millionaires in congress. Turns out the millionaire democrats outnumbered the republicans. Go figure.
2004 Democrat Campaign Slogan: ”Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you!” Go Howard Dean!!!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hunh. I guess I figure that people are smart enough to get the real point, which is "who is going to pay the deficit?" The rest of it is window dressing. People who don't *want* to like Bush may interpret the way the ad was shot as a suggestion that Bush will want to revoke child-labor laws in his second term (giving a whole new meaning to "No Child Left Behind"). But I didn't get that out of the ad.
I guess that I also figure people are smart enough to realize that the deficit didn't get there in just three years. So the question is reasonable enough...but is it reasonable to think that any single person is really going to make a dent in what is already an unthinkable amount of money?
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, so the girl in the tire factory was a tough call (honestly, I looked at it like 4 times). I did say I was being fecetious, right?
Yes, the lighting. I think they went the wrong way on that call. But I'm not a serious person.
Forget it. They hit the nail on the head. I almost like it better than the famous one with the girl in the field with the flower and then the mushroom cloud comes. Whoever did this Bush commercial should work for Coke.
posted
The infamous ad with the girl picking flowers and the mushroom cloud was actually a ripoff of a much earlier ad - one run against Barry Goldwater.
I'm curious to know if the ad has been tested with swing voters or otherwise uncomitted voters. In constructing an ad, the object isn't to construct something that excites people who agree with you - it's to grab people who aren't firmly entrenched in the opposition. It's the only real test of effectiveness.
The ad doesn't do it for me, but that's mostly because I don't respond well to emotional appeals in general. It seems designed to evoke a strong emotional response.
And I'm not a Bush fan.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That’s why Dem hate Bush so. They’re jealous that the GOP has someone that everyone can be proud of.
My god that's funny! Jay, I'm really enjoying your posts. At first I seriously thought that you were what you're presenting yourself as, but I'm getting it now. That's a hoot!
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That’s why Dem hate Bush so. They’re jealous that the GOP has someone that everyone can be proud of. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My god that's funny! Jay, I'm really enjoying your posts. At first I seriously thought that you were what you're presenting yourself as, but I'm getting it now. That's a hoot!
Not my fault if you're jealous and not proud. It seems to be one way or the other was my point.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
CBS is a private company, they shouldn't have to say or not say anything. If they want to be taken seriously as a place for political debate, they might be interested in showing no political ads at all and only reporting the news. Or, perhaps they want to take the course of Fox news or the New York Times and take a side. Eitheir way, some people will like and some will dislike them for it. But it is their choice.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, Jay, mere insistence that you're right and that the truth is self-evident doesn't convince people you're right or, in fact, convince people you're very intelligent either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't particularly trust George W. Bush, and I voted for him. In Florida, no less. I'm just more comfortable with his bulls*!t than I would've been with Gore's bulls*!t, or I would be with any one of the Democratic candidate's guaranteed future bulls*&t.
Are you a caricature for a conservative Republican, Jay?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
jeniwren, we almost went into default on the national debt in 2002, due to record increases in the deficit. Does that count as a dent?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: You know, Jay, mere insistence that you're right and that the truth is self-evident doesn't convince people you're right or, in fact, convince people you're very intelligent either.
So I’m not funny and not intelligent. Guess I’m a bigot too. The new definition of a bigot is the following: “Anyone who is winning an argument with a liberal” So, keep up the name calling, the put downs, and what ever else you can throw at me. It’s sort of funny that not one of the libs on this board will argue against my campaign slogan for them. They know it’s what they stand for and they hope to see it true one day. They just hope that the fence riders don’t one day get it and join with the right on the side of personal responsibility and self worth. The truth will prevail. Fun fun fun!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you a caricature for a conservative Republican, Jay?
A caricature is exactly what he's presenting, Rakeesh, and he's doing it brilliantly. I'm telling you, this guy is hilarious!
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is in very poor taste. If you looked at the visuals alone you would assume the ad is making some kind of point about child labor laws, not the deficit.
I support CBS decision not to run it, and if the Bush camp came up with something similar I would expect them to do the same thing. I have no problem with the network deciding not to air something they think is inflammatory, so long as it applies to both sides equally.
Personally, I never thought of CBS as a lover of all things conservative so I doubt this was a partisan decision.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I'm more than willing to admit how ignorant I am. What does it mean to say that we almost went into default in 2002?
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, you meant that to be the Democrat slogan, Jay?
I thought that, with all the free stuff being thrown at senior citizens and the likes of Halliburton, you meant it to be the Republican's slogan.
<---liberal Independent voting Dems not because of any special love for socialism, but because of a love for the Constitution.
Hell, I'm all for Capitalism--My screenname is from their bible, for Bob's sake--but even I have to concede that some amount of socialism is necessary in today's society to ensure that the upper class has someone to buy what it's selling.
If you're a real person, and not just a troll, perhaps you should strengthen the foundation of your argument.
We should lock you and Lalo in a thread for an hour.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"What does it mean to say that we almost went into default in 2002?"
In 2002, the rapid increase in the federal deficit due to Bush's tax cut and the collapse of the economy meant that we temporarily did not have enough cash on hand to actually pay our debts. We had to tap into other reserve funds -- the first time in history that this has happened -- to keep the cash flow going.
The national debt is not repaid on a yearly basis; it's a continual thing, as various debts come due for collection. But never before -- with the exception of the original founding of the country, when we sent Ben Franklin to France with some apples -- has the payment on that debt been so high, and national cash reserves so low, that we were not actually able to make payments.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, another stupid citizen question: What happens in cases like that...does it take an act of Congress to say okay to tapping into the reserves, or can the President just take what is needed?
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: And he’s someone you can trust who doesn’t lie unlike Clinton.
What??? Have you been living in a hole in the ground for the past year.
Examples of George Bush lies.
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." – President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." – President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." – President Bush, Oct. 7 2002.
"We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." – President Bush, Oct. 7 2002.
"We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." – President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.
"Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." – President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.
Everyone of these statements has been proven untrue. The Bush administration had the data that proved they were untrue when Bush made these statements. They have subsequently admitted that most of these statements were lies. How could you possibly believe that GW Bush doesn't lie.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jeniwren: Tom, another stupid citizen question: What happens in cases like that...does it take an act of Congress to say okay to tapping into the reserves, or can the President just take what is needed?
As far as I know, Congress is in charge of appropriating money. Bush's spending for the Iraq war had to go through congress after all. The Senate and the House both have Budget committees and Appropriations committees. (Also: Senate Finance Committee, House Ways and Means, House Committe on Financial Services, Joint Committe on Taxation)
Edit: clarification
[ January 23, 2004, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
