BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

CBS could nix MoveOn Bush commercial

37 comments on CBS could nix MoveOn Bush commercial

CBS could nix MoveOn Bush commercial
: Set up the picket lines now. A CBS spokesman says that the MoveOn anti-Bush commercial may not make it onto the SuperBowl. Says AdAge:

A spokesman for CBS said the Viacom-owned network has received the request from MoveOn to run the ad in the Super Bowl, but added that the ad has to go through standards and practices before CBS will say if it can run an advocacy ad during the game. The spokesman said he didn’t think it was likely that the spot would pass standards and practices.

S**t meet fan.

Now I may have carped about the carping tone of all the MoveOn anti-commercials but from any perspective — business, democracy, PR — CBS would be a horse’s rump if it refused the commercial.

Here’s the network that airs Michael Jackson’s bedtime stories.

Here’s the network that makes people eat bugs.

More to the point, here’s the network that wouldn’t air a cheesy mini critical of Ronald Reagan.

And now here’s the network that won’t air a commercial of the people that’s critical of George Bush?

Jeesh. Wanna make yourselves Exhibit 1 in the case for (conservative) media bias?

And whom are you protecting, CBS? Us? We don’t need it, thanks.

37 responses to “CBS could nix MoveOn Bush commercial”

  1. tim Avatar
    tim

    Agreed that CBS should allow the ad to run, but I wonder if part of the overall strategy hasn’t been to announce the ad with great fanfair, certain in the knowledge that it would never run.
    Advocacy groups (and some commercial entities) do this frequently, knowing that the news coverage of the cancellation and the ensuing furor will be worth much much more than the one-time airing of the spot as an ad.
    If this gets yanked, it’ll run over and over on TV news and – the 21st Centuury Twist – it’ll be seen by hundreds of thousands who go to the web site and download the Quicktime version.

  2. hugh macleod Avatar
    hugh macleod

    Good point, Tim.
    Eh, it’s understandable. CBS wants to avoid making powerful enemies (if the White House hated my guts I’d be nervous, too). Don’t blame them.
    To use the Superbowl, a quasi-national institution, to go after the president is asking for trouble.
    I know this, you know this, we all know this, so what’s the problem?

  3. Lola Avatar
    Lola

    The way I look at it, does the owner of a network really want to be known as the one running a commercial that referred to Hitler? If I were the owner, I’d stay far away from such ads.

  4. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    Lola: That’s not the ad that won.

  5. Hipocrite Avatar
    Hipocrite

    Hugh looks at the White House intimidating seemingly private corporations, strong-arming them into muting any critizism of the adminstration, and what does he say?
    “Don’t blame them [CBS].”
    Oh no, Hugh – you should certainly blame them. You should blame them, and you should blame the adminstration for letting that view get out. It’s been said over and over that you only have the right to a free press if you can buy the newspaper. MoveOn is buying the newspaper. Apparently, they don’t actually have the right to that free press, because of the content of the message.
    CBS has run a Dianetcs commercial over and over through the past years. Apparently advertisments from the cult of greed and power are ok, but advertisments critical of the adminstration are not.

  6. R. C. Dean Avatar
    R. C. Dean

    If CBS is going to run an anti-Bush commercial (presumably for free) during the Super Bowl, is it also planning on running a pro-Bush commercial for free during the Super Bowl? If not, why not? Wouldn’t simple fairness (if not, like, the law) dictate that they give equal time?

  7. HH Avatar
    HH

    It’s any network’s prerogative to run anything they damn well please. Those crying “censorship” have no idea what that means…

  8. HH Avatar
    HH

    No, you see, the proponents of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine believe that some things are more fair than others…
    Ads are turned down by networks and stations all the time for a variety of reasons, up to and including the General Manager being in a bad mood that day. The idea that that is some threat to democracy is beyond absurd.

  9. Dann Avatar
    Dann

    CBS ought to have the right to determine what it broadcasts and what it does not. It also is required to live with the consequences of such decisions.
    Not running The Reagans due to its significant failing on the ‘docu’ end of ‘docudrama’ made sense.
    Not running the MoveOn ad (and thereby forgoing the revenue) for partisan reasons doesn’t make much sense. Unless the ad violates their previously used style practices, they ought to air it.
    Of course, CBS may be trying to keep the SuperBowl a politics free zone. I don’t know if they have ever aired political ads during the SB in the past, and that fact (or lack thereof) ought to inform their current decision.
    -Regards

  10. Hipocrite Avatar
    Hipocrite

    R.C. Dean presumes that MoveOn expected to get their ad time for free.
    He is, of course, wrong, and his future presumptions should be evaluated on his past performance.
    It is ironic that he, presumably a Republican, is a supporter of the Fairness Doctrine. By all means, bring it back.
    HH writes that it is a networks “perogative” to run anything they want.
    Of course, he is both right and short-sighted at the same time.
    If it was a Club for Growth ad, don’t you think we’d be hearing about the Liberal Media by now? Of course. But the far right has dominated the media by playing the refs for so many weeks that the thought of criticizing CBS for only accepting right-wing advertisements is unthinkable.
    HH assets that “ads are turned down all the time.” Obviously, he either has personal experience or some sort of statistical report on the hit rate of standards-and-practices. Clearly, he will share this with us when challenged, which he should consider this.
    Dann correctly asks if CBS is trying to keep the SuperBowl a politics free zone. Of course, if that’s the case, one would expect them to reject all advertising that’s even remotely political. One should look back at the 2002 Super Bowl for their track record on that.

  11. yhbt Avatar
    yhbt

    hand

  12. steve Avatar
    steve

    Super Bowl viewers don’t want to see political ads, period.
    Regardless of our political leanings, we want to see clever, amusing ads. (If it fails to be amusing, it should at least be unintrusive.)
    Preferably, the ads will be for (but not limited to) products like beer, athletic shoes, and cars.
    The Super Bowl has developed a tradition. Advertisers bring out their big guns, and pay top dollar. Viewers who are tuned in to commercials expect to be entertained by those commercials.
    Moveon isn’t going to entertain anybody.
    Getting back to politics: The number of calls and letters CBS gets from libs/bushhaters, praising the ad, will be dwarfed by the calls and letters they get from angry conservatives who were watching the Super Bowl for chrissakes, and didn’t want to change the channel or shut off the damn TV.
    If CBS nixes the ad, this is the reason they’ll do it.

  13. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    Wow, Jeff and Hipocite agree. What are y’all, some kind of f’ing liberals? Turn in your Warblogger credentials, Jeff.

  14. Seyed Razavi Avatar
    Seyed Razavi

    Damn, Jeff, you a liberal or something? :)

  15. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    Agreed with Jeff that this move would be a tad hypocritical on CBS’ part. That kind of bias is bad for the discourse.
    Moveon isn’t going to entertain anybody.
    Really? I’ve watched the winning MoveOn ad and was actually quite entertained. Maybe you meant to say “anybody with my political leanings.”

  16. Floyd McWilliams Avatar
    Floyd McWilliams

    The decision would only by hypocritical, or indicative of conservative bias, if CBS were running Republican commercials during the Super Bowl.
    Of course CBS is not going to do so. And as steve noted, CBS has no incentive to run ads that irritate people during their flagship broadcast.

  17. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    Just a little nit-pick:
    “Here’s the network that makes people eat bugs” Makes? I thought that was their argument??
    Good article tho. And good luck on making NYM’s best blog!!
    -rts

  18. James Avatar
    James

    Is the winning MoveOn ad even *liberal*? It criticizes the Bush Administration for running up of the debt to a trillion dollars. That’s a valid point, to be sure– it’s also a FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE point. Slate’s media critic has a pretty good take-down of the group’s loss of nerve here. These kids went from far left anti-war rhetoric to putting out something that wouldn’t be out of place at the Cato Institute?
    http://slate.msn.com/id/2093860/
    Of all the ads, this is the one that most looks like it was dreamed up and executed by the Democratic National Committee. So why bother? Why not just leave that sort of thing to the DNC itself and strive for something new and different? MoveOn clearly conceived of this contest as a bold experiment in opening up the forum, turning the consumer/producer tables, and crashing the media dialogue. (The contest rules even state: “We’re NOT looking for the same old slick political ads from Washington media consultants.”) But in the end they went with the most polished, staid option. What’s more, this ad completely ignores the MoveOn crowd’s single biggest issue: the war in Iraq. Is this what all those grass-roots folks wanted to see when they donated money to air a spot that would speak for unheard voices? An ad about the growing deficit?

  19. Jack Tanner Avatar
    Jack Tanner

    They should only show it if the Patriots are down by 3 touchdowns. Then I’ll have changed the channel.

  20. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    James:
    Good point! It is — well, was — a conservative theme… until Reagan started pumping up that deficit, eh? It’s a very confusing world: Republicans do debt; Democrats do balanced budgeting; left-wing organization picks commercial with right-wing theme. Arrrrgh. I’m so confused. Am I liberal or conservative? I can’t tell! You tell me! …. (Don’t you dare…)

  21. Steve in Houston Avatar
    Steve in Houston

    Actually, neither party is all that interested in “fiscal responsibility”. They each equally want to be the party that controls the purse strings and hands out spoils.
    The question is no longer whether the government should hand out largesse or not, but rather who gets how much.
    If they could have a balanced budget while doing it, well, great, but it’s not necessary.

  22. Steve in Houston Avatar
    Steve in Houston

    Oh, and as for the ad, it’ll be difficult for it to make much of a splash amidst all the funny talking animals and guys getting hit in the crotch during all the “edgy, funny” other ads.
    The people inclined to the ad’s politics – if they are even watching the Super Bowl – will nod their heads sagely and say “Very good point. Bush does indeed suck. Where’s the onion dip again?”.
    The ones inclined against will shake their heads and say “What the f? F’ing liberals. Where’s the onion dip again?”

  23. bryan Avatar
    bryan

    Here’s the network that makes people eat bugs.
    I thought it was NBC that made people eat bugs.
    Oh, yeah. It is:
    http://www.nbc.com/Fear_Factor/index.shtml

  24. Glenn Avatar
    Glenn

    i would like nothing more than to see a moveon ad aired during the super bowl. the more they publicize their ideas, the more foolish they look.

  25. HH Avatar
    HH

    Yes, I have first-hand experience, but if you’re asking for a link to “first-hand experience,” I can’t help you.
    If it was a Club for Growth ad, we’d probably hear about it from Newsmax and it would go away. No one would be running around claiming censorship or “this is a threat to the republic.”

  26. out4blood Avatar
    out4blood

    Maybe it’s not the final version, but the winning ad on MoveOn’s site doesn’t contain anything negative about George W. Bush. It’s a poignant ad that says: Hey, our kids are gonna have to pay for this deficit. What’s wrong with that?
    And if MoveOn is willing to pay the rent, why should they not be entitled to the space?
    I’m with Jeff. Shame on CBS for even mentioning that it might NOT air. Double shame on them if they are the reason it doesn’t.
    Note, this wouldn’t even be newsworthy (blogworthy?) if it weren’t for the Hitler ad and the CBS pre-denial.

  27. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    Bryan: Survivor’s bugs came first.

  28. HH Avatar
    HH

    No one is “entitled” to a millisecond on the airwaves, much less the national airwaves, even if they have $1 billion to spend on it.

  29. HH Avatar
    HH

    Conan O’Brien denies the National Post their “entitlement”…
    http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6735cfc7-d25d-4a50-abab-bbb1e1787b18

  30. Greg Avatar
    Greg

    You sure Conan did that himself? I mean, he has a boss. Or many bosses. That doesn’t seem at all Conany…

  31. Tink Avatar
    Tink

    Is it possible that this has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the idea that Superbowl commercials are part of the show?
    Superbowl is the only time I have ever heard someone say “I only watch it for the commercials” and be serious. I’ve heard folks complain that the “commercials just weren’t as good this year”
    Last year there were sites up all over the place where you could download, watch, and vote on the superbowl commercials.
    Possibly this has more to do with the entertainment factor,than the political factor.
    Oh, and the entertainment continues after the Superbowl..All- Star Survivor (all the bugs you can eat) premeires immediately following the game..::

  32. HH Avatar
    HH

    Conan is a producer of his own show if I’m not mistaken… the move is surprising, especially considering how open he was to inviting O’Reilly on his program and mending fences with him. The point is lots of things happen in the TV world all the time that anyone could run around and call “censorship” when it’s just that person’s prerogative. If Conan doesn’t want the Natl. Post, that’s his deal.

  33. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    Is it possible that this has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the idea that Superbowl commercials are part of the show?
    Is it possible that an ad critical of the deficit the current Administration has run up is being targeted for purely non-political reasons? Yes. Is it likely? No.

  34. John Avatar
    John

    Actually, if MoveOn had a sense of history — and given Al Gore’s association with them and Apple Computer — they would probably run an ad mimicking Apple’s Mac rollout ad on the Super Bowl 20 years ago, only with Bush’s face on the view screen (though in terms of re-creating the totalitarian feel of the original ad, I think having George Soros droning on and on in his Eastern European accent would do a better job of implying an Orwellian 1984-like state).
    Anyway, given the amount of consumption of beer and other alcoholic beverages by Americans during your average Super Bowl, a political ad for or against anyone is probably a waste of money in terms of direct potential impact, but MoveOn could justify it with the pre-game publicity it would receive in the media. They just better hope it doesn’t come on in the fourth quarter of a 45-10 blowout when people would be both drunk and paying no attention.

  35. Greg D Avatar
    Greg D

    Gee, could be that maybe CBS doesn’t want to piss of their viewers, again, and get the crap kicked out of them, again?
    I missed it, Jeff, are you a fan of “campaign finance reform”? Certainly no one who loves McCain-Feingold could be in favor of private citizens spending their own money to advance a political agenda, since it works so hard to end that.

  36. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    I think having George Soros . . .
    Certainly no one who loves McCain-Feingold could be in favor of private citizens spending their own money to advance a political agenda . . .
    Funny, BTW, how GOPers have suddenly noticed that the disproportionate influence billionaires have on American politics might just be a bad thing. I wonder where all these people were when Scaife was doing his thing, hmmm?
    Ahh, how the worm turns. Very funny indeed.
    Gee, could be that maybe CBS doesn’t want to piss of [sic] their viewers . . .
    The poster who thought CBS is scared of the White House was on the money, IMO.

  37. Benjamin Temchine Avatar
    Benjamin Temchine

    Political ads? _ALL_ ads are political (triple underlined) Does anyone here actually believe that and advert for an SUV isn’t political? Or an add for organic coffee?
    Consumerism is inherently political. the job of the advertising agencciees is to make the message go down easier than a congressman on K street.