The controversial Supreme Court ruling that has been discussed as both judicial activism and Constitutional on the left-wing blogsphere has opened some conversations. What does this mean for us? How can we fight back against the oligarchs? Are they within their rights?
But John Amato, in my opinion, asked the most important question of all: What happens when a corporation buys up all of the ad space, leaving nothing for us plebeians. Ad space is limited, and yes, in some instances so is free speech; people compete for spots on college campuses and bands compete for the ability to play their music at the local bar.
However, another question then emerges, as the Super Bowl debacle will tell all: what happens when a corporation not only buys up the ad space, but when the corporate media refuses to air ads that go against their interest ON TOP OF ads supporting their interest taking up every piece of air-time?
More after the jump on CBS, the Super Bowl hypocrisy, what this means for us, and their latest addition: refusal to air NORML's Times Square ad.
It started in 2004, as best as I know it, showed its bias in censoring of what they perceive to be "left-wing" causes.
The 2004 Super Bowl seemed to be the best time to get people revved up and rearing to go, the best year to use MoveOn's resources--an election year--to attack the Bush administration for its disgusting and abominable performance. MoveOn prepared an ad, offered to buy the space from CBS in order to promote the non-for-profit's advocacy. CBS wanted nothing to do with it, and denied running their ad. Here is the ad, just for reference:
That same Super Bowl, CBS denied PETA airtime to run their ad as well. Now, I'm no big fan of PETA's, even if I appreciate their cause; their sexism and sometimes extreme messaging, added with some whacked out views (human milk to be used instead of cow's milk?) both turn me off. Anyway, here is their ad for reference:
As you can see, there's clear sexism in this ad, but the point still stands: they denied them the ad space because why? Well, let's ask CBS:
The ad was originally intended to air during the 2004 Superbowl but was rejected by CBS on the basis that it “might offend viewers”. The network also claimed a general policy of not airing advocacy advertisements...
[snip]
In a letter, CBS told PETA that it would not run advertisements on "controversial issues of public importance."
Alright, maybe they're right. Maybe they just don't like to run advertisements on "controversial issues of public importance." Let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
Fast forward one year, it's now 2005. UCC decides that they want some airtime to promote a message: love and acceptance, no matter who you are or where you come from; something you'd think all Christians would appreciate it. Hell, you'd think it's something all creeds could appreciate. Apparently, that ad was also just too controversial for CBS, and it was subsequently rejected. That ad is referenced here:
Continuing on our journey to 2007. It's Super Bowl season once again. CBS decides to air an ad involving men accidentally kissing while eating a Snickers bar. This isn't a controversial issue, it's a bit homoerotic, but clearly the men did not intend to kiss each other. It's also another veiled sexist ad with a phrase, "Do something manly!" That ad is referenced here:
Where were we? Oh, right, 2010.
CBS has made clear statements: political advocacy is not allowed, and we're serious about that. Fair enough, I mean, if that's how you guys roll, that's cool I guess. You're free to reject the ads if you want. Are they consistent, though? As we can all tell with Timmy Tebow's misogynist, anti-woman ad, apparently, CBS accepts controversy, so long as it fits in with their producers' world view. And by producers, I mean Viacom and the disgusting hold the corporate backers have; everything you can do to keep filling your share holders and CEO's pockets with good ratings, eh, CBS? Everyone knows America is a good, Christian, pro-life nation, and airing such an ad is a boon for ratings and corporate profits.
Ok, so they're airing Timmy Tebow's ad with his lying mother about a false choice that she had. So is CBS admitting that they were lying in the past about political ads? Maybe, maybe not; so let's put them to the test.
It's still 2010, and they won't air the ad we've all been hearing about: the Mancrunch ad. Why? Once again, "too political." So I think it's beyond safe to say, that even when given every benefit of the doubt, CBS is lying through their teeth, avoiding anything that doesn't fit their world view. That ad is here:
Does the hypocrisy end here? Hah! You'd think so, but nothing is too hypocritcal for CBS. Despite being shown to be the hacks that they are, they're now denying NORML--National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws--ad space in Times Square to advocate their own political cause: reforming our unscientific and wrong marijuana laws. Why are they doing this? Can you repeat it by now, because it's the same excuse they've always given:
CBS has rejected a contract deal with NORML to place a pro-cannabis law reform advertisement on the biggest electronic billboard in Times Square (The CBS ‘Super Screen’ at 42nd St) claiming that the advertisement is too political.
Did you say it before I posted? Good, you're all such fast learners! Too political.
The ad can be seen here:
This is all very disheartening, and I'm not sure how we fight back. With the newest Supreme Court ruling, corporations hold the true power--it's a given they have a hold now, but this would be unprecedented, a banana republic of sorts. How can they say that they're supporting free speech, when OUR free speech is being denied? It's all well and good that CBS is rejecting customers they don't want; that's well within their rights. However, they and the other networks hold the keys to our political advocacy, and that court decision has suffocated what little power we had left. They choose which ads to air; the corporations have the ability to buy up every bit of ad space--which is limited--out pacing our money supply.
Where do we go from here? Discuss in the comment section.
Also, just for those of you on Facebook, check out my Fan Group, Progressives United for Change:
Progressives United for Change