« Army Planning For Four More Years In Iraq | Main | Osama Who? »

Utah Stations Refuse To Run Sheehan Ad

SALT LAKE CITY - A Utah television station is refusing to air an anti-war ad featuring Cindy Sheehan, whose son's death in Iraq prompted a vigil outside President Bush's Texas ranch.

The ad began airing on other area stations Saturday, two days before Bush was scheduled to speak in Salt Lake City to the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

However, a national sales representative for KTVX, a local ABC affiliate, rejected the ad in an e-mail to media buyers, writing that it was an "inappropriate commercial advertisement for Salt Lake City."

In the ad, Sheehan pleads with Bush for a meeting and accuses him of lying to the American people about Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction and its connection to al-Qaida.

"I love my country. But how many more of our loved ones need to die in this senseless war?" a weary-looking Sheehan asks in the ad. "I know you can't bring Casey back. But it's time to admit mistakes and bring our troops home now."

You can view the commercial here.

I honestly don't see anything "inappropriate" about it. Cindy accuses the President of "lying" about several of the reasons for war in Iraq, so maybe these television stations are worried about giving air time to somebody calling the President a liar when its clear to most of us with common sense that he didn't lie about Iraq. But that's just a guess.

Were it up to me, I'd have let the ad run. Most Americans don't agree with the idea that the President "lied" about the WMD's and know that Saddam had plenty of ties to al Qaeda, though not to the 9/11 attacks specifically. This is why Americans re-elected the President in the face of these accusations of lying. Putting Cindy Sheehan up to repeat these accusations again is only going to do more harm to her causes than it would to the cause of the President.

That dead horse has been beaten to death. Putting Cindy on air to repeat these weary claims yet again is only going to make people change the channel.

By Rob Port of Say Anything.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Utah Stations Refuse To Run Sheehan Ad:

» In Search Of Utopia linked with Welcome Salon dot Com Readers - Updated

Comments (32)

Is it " Stations" or "stati... (Below threshold)
judgement day cometh:

Is it " Stations" or "station"?

Stations suggest a few or many but according to the article 1 "station" ( who happens to be owned by Clear Channel) refused to air it.

The article further states, "The ad began airing on other area stations Saturday".

So here we have 1 republican backed corporate media outlet ( Clear Channel) refusing to air the ad but at least a few local channels allowing freedom of speech to continue.

I'm not at all surprised by this, appalled but not at all surprised.

Advocating bring the troops... (Below threshold)
John:

Advocating bring the troops home now just lost Cindy half of her traction. People are upset at the deathrate on both sides of the war issue. Now she just turned herself into purely an anti-war advocate.

Bub-bye.

Hey Judgement Day Cometh, c... (Below threshold)
Gringo:

Hey Judgement Day Cometh, can I tatoo "BUSH IS AWESOME" on your forehead? No??? Freedom of Speech, man!

"Putting Cindy on air to re... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

"Putting Cindy on air to repeat these weary claims yet again is only going to make people change the channel."

By Rob Port of Say Anything.

And that is why they don't want to run the ads.

I disagree, Rob. This is sp... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

I disagree, Rob. This is speech that transcends our borders. Giving her an even bigger forum to perpetuate dubious claims will provide fodder for those capable of fisking her rhetoric, and if that was as far as things went, then free, ranting speech it is and let's all purchase air time to advance the debate. The problem is that such amplified rhetoric crosses the globe and emboldens our enemies. It provides for them their own sheet of talking points to shake on a world stage to say to the less politically sophisticated or aware "Bush is the Devil" or other such hyperbole. Open debate will not occur in a uniform and fair manner in certain domains by those whose interests conflict with those of the U.S. and coalition participants, i.e. terrorists, tyrants, and suggestable sycophants.

Is it really wise to advocate such unqualified bloviation considering the inevitable manipulation? Should extreme partisanship, perhaps unjustifiably slanderous, be perpetuated? Why stop at calling Bush a liar? Why not let someone else float a conspiracy that Mr. Bush knew 9/11 was about to happen and told a certain religious sect to leave the WTC? We at home may certainly dismiss such claims, but many abroad won't. I'd just as soon not provide the megaphone despite advocacy for the First Amendment.

RE: judgement day cometh's ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: judgement day cometh's post (August 21, 2005 12:44 PM)

So here we have 1 republican backed corporate media outlet ( Clear Channel) refusing to air the ad but at least a few local channels allowing freedom of speech to continue.

And the Freedom of Speech is getting violated where? And which law mandates that her political views be aired? I thought you were against the union of politics and corporations... you know, the fascism meme. Or is it merely the politics of Republicans and corporations that disturbs you so?

Judgement,Read up ... (Below threshold)

Judgement,

Read up on the bill of rights. Freedom of Speech only guarantees you the right to not be persecuted by the federal government. It does NOT guarantee you an avenue through a private entity (such as a television station, radio station, or a blog) to air your views.

Perhaps the reason they are... (Below threshold)

Perhaps the reason they are refusing it is exactly because of what you said...people will only change the channel.

I love the way some of the ... (Below threshold)
judgment day cometh:

I love the way some of the posts here start splitting hairs as to why Clear Channel refuses to allow the ad.

We heard, "people will turn the channel". Ok, so considering it's a paid ad are you now telling me most people sit through all commercials as well?

Also, if they turned the channel that would tell they weren't interested in the subject. On the other hand some people might find Ms. Sheehans ad something worth watching.

You see how this works. In an open society exchange of ideas and opinions lend to the greater good of understanding by everyone.

When you have corporate pigs picking and choosing for you what will be aired you better prepare for the real end game of such behavior.

"I'd just as soon not provide the megaphone despite advocacy for the First Amendment.".....An American actually wrote this? Talk about oxymoronic, unpatriotic and uniformed.

....and people have often wondered how Germany in the 1930's allowed a crazed lunatic to take over their democracy.

I didn't realize Cindy was ... (Below threshold)
John:

I didn't realize Cindy was rich enough to run all these ads.

Godwin! Buy me a coke!... (Below threshold)
Malibu Stacy:

Godwin! Buy me a coke!

I bet if Mr. Judgement were... (Below threshold)
Vanshalar:

I bet if Mr. Judgement were threatened with banning from this blog for his obviously inaccurate remarks, he'd holler the free speech line too -- even though this is a private blog and the owners are free to set their own standards.

Similarly, Clear Channel is free to decide which commercials it wants to air. That's a business decision -- how much money it's getting from the advertisers versus how much money it thinks it'll lose from people complaining (or as has been said, changing the channel). But apparently this constitutional scholar here believes that such decisions go against "free speech". Even worse, it's "Republican backed" and therefore must be under the evil guidance of KKKarl Rove himself, the unholy incarnate who is planning this as just one step in his ultimate goal of controlling the speech and thought of all Americans, as opposed to people who say that you shouldn't be allowed to say that boys and girls are different or that colleges should base applicants purely on merit rather than have a racial component. No no no, those things should be labelled "discrimination", and their believers should be called "bigots" and "close-minded" as the true free speech.

You want to call out free speech? Talk to Mark Yost first.

RE: judgment day cometh's p... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: judgment day cometh's post (August 21, 2005 01:56 PM)

"I'd just as soon not provide the megaphone despite advocacy for the First Amendment."[AD].....An American actually wrote this? Talk about oxymoronic, unpatriotic and uniformed.

Do you not grasp the First Amendment? Did you comprehend my post? I'll recap in little words - I want vigorous debate that can be brutally analyzed, if necessary, and fairly critiqued. I don't want dubious rhetoric aiding those who would threaten Americans. Sheehan is NOT being muted and I'll support her right to speak her opinion as long as it doesn't endanger lives, excepting of course, terrorists. She has no inalienable right to subsidized speech over public/private air. Pretty simple really.

Now, please answer my questions: "And the Freedom of Speech is getting violated where? And which law mandates that her political views be aired? ...is it merely the politics of Republicans and corporations that disturbs you so?"


....and people have often wondered how Germany in the 1930's allowed a crazed lunatic to take over their democracy.

And you wonder why I predicted the short hop, skip, and jump from fascism to Nazism from your previous posts? Yep, I was waaay off. My crystal ball is well-honed to this frequency. You remain in clear focus.


Cheers, Malibu Stacy! Make it a double.

The 14 Defining Characteris... (Below threshold)
judgement day cometh:

The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism


Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed
to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Wow given how many of those... (Below threshold)
Vanshalar:

Wow given how many of those traits don't apply to America, I'm glad to know America is still a non-Fascist country.

So how many of those apply to our hero Saddam Hussein's former country?

P.S. I'm waiting for someone to connect #2 to what they're doing over in Europe to imams. "But those guys were legally in those countries!" (Where's the human rights ballyhoo that you know would happen if it were America doing it?) Also to see how many of those line up with the U.N. Such as, oh say, #13.

judgement day cometh said: ... (Below threshold)

judgement day cometh said: "So here we have 1 republican backed corporate media outlet ( Clear Channel) refusing to air the ad but at least a few local channels allowing freedom of speech to continue."

Advertising entails the transfer of money. That means that it is no longer "free" speech. It's paid for speech, which isn't protected in the US Constitution. What about Clear Channel's freedom to use it's radio station as it sees fit? Irregardless of whether you agree with Sheehan's message or not, Clear Channel has the right to control what it broadcasts. Just as you have the right to turn it off.

Does anyone think Air America would air a pro-Bush advertisement? I know that I seriously doubt they would!

Not that Judge actually loo... (Below threshold)
SFConserv:

Not that Judge actually looks at articles and uses his brain, but it would nice t oat least accuse the right organization, which is the local station, not Clear Channel. All other clear channell stations have been airing it you idiot.

"In a statement Saturday evening explaining its decision, KTVX said that after viewing the ad, local managers found the content "could very well be offensive to our community in Utah, which has contributed more than its fair share of fighting soldiers and suffered significant loss of life in this Iraq war.

Station General Manager David D'Antuono said the decision was not influenced by the station's owner, Clear Channel Communications Inc."

As usual, another Leftie with pre conceived notions who does not look at both side, but rather snippets to try to confirm their narrow and simple notions. It must really suck to always be angry and never have any solutions to anything, just complaints.

RE: "judgement day cometh's... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: "judgement day cometh's post" (August 21, 2005 02:36 PM)

You know you should fully attribute someone else's work when you cut and paste it. It might help if you provided some of your own commentary too since trying to address such a post could take an entire dissertation. The author summarized his debatable theories in talking points (which you have presented verbatim), and to reply appropriately would require equal commentary assuming one even desired such an exercise or thought it worth the trouble.

Anyway, you have provided irrefutable, absolute, and final "evidence" that we are all Fascists. I guess I'll start picking out the right shade of brown since it's inevitable that a mustached Messiah with cute red arm bands with stylistic crosses is just around the corner and looking to recruit new extremists. Ooh, I'm just giddy to find out what he has in store for us!

But before I see my tailor, could you please answer the "Freedom of Speech" questions redundantly and previously posed?

JACK ARMY, You make a good ... (Below threshold)
judgement day cometh:

JACK ARMY, You make a good point in that since the deregulation of the media in the mid 1990's corporate companies with strong political agendas have taken over all media in this country to where 98% of media from print to tv is now owned by 5 conglomerates.

An administration would have an easy time of talking to or otherwise twisting the arms of 5 CEOs rather than 100's of independant owners to push a certain agenda.

Also, the "one hand washes the other" mentality that is prevelant in corporate circles bodes well with this new arrangement.

I find it sad and disturbing though that you actually find this arrangement good for America and Americans.


"Wow given how many of thos... (Below threshold)
judgement day cometh:

"Wow given how many of those traits don't apply to America, I'm glad to know America is still a non-Fascist country." LOL

Vanshalar, comedy can be used as a wonderful defense but in this case there is nothing comical about it.

"You know you should fully ... (Below threshold)
judgement day cometh:

"You know you should fully attribute someone else's work when you cut and paste it."

I guess this commentor in all of his hysteria failed to read the name of "Dr. Lawrence Britt".

An administration would ... (Below threshold)

An administration would have an easy time of talking to or otherwise twisting the arms of 5 CEOs rather than 100's of independant owners to push a certain agenda.

So why are those companies' news outlets still obsessed with Cindy's Crawford circus? Why are they still breathlessly asking each other when, oh when will that uncaring warmonger Bush not meet with this bereaved mother?

Seems like maybe the administration isn't doing a whole lot of arm-twisting.

Heck, Mr. Cometh -- your Internet access is probably handled by a major conglomerate whose arm could easily be twisted. I guess that's why you can't get on these websites to leave your comments.

Oh wait...

An administration would ... (Below threshold)

An administration would have an easy time of talking to or otherwise twisting the arms of 5 CEOs rather than 100's of independant owners to push a certain agenda.

So why are those companies' news outlets still obsessed with Cindy's Crawford circus? Why are they still breathlessly asking each other when, oh when will that uncaring warmonger Bush meet with this bereaved mother?

Seems like maybe the administration isn't doing a whole lot of arm-twisting.

Heck, Mr. Cometh -- your Internet access is probably handled by a major conglomerate whose arm could easily be twisted. I guess that's why you can't get on these websites to leave your comments.

Oh wait...

This is a case of liberals ... (Below threshold)
spider:

This is a case of liberals trying to expand the bill of rights and at the same time take away freedom of the little people. The silent majority of americans trust our president to prosecute the war without or input or intervention. Clear channel recognizes that its programming in Salt Lake City caters to those little people who want to enjoy their free time that we are protecting in Iraq. Nobody wants it spoiled with bad karma commercials when they want to be entertained. If we can't "enjoy" our free time without being annoyed by these naysayers why fight the war in the first place. Bush didn't start this war. Saddam did. Sheehan needs to let him finish the job without complaining.

Here is a clue for J... (Below threshold)
B Moe:


Here is a clue for JDC:

CORPORATIONS ARE GREEDY!
This means they want to make as much money as the possibly can.

THEY MAKE MONEY BY SELLING ADS!
The price of these ads is based on viewership, more viewers is better.

THEY SHOW WHAT WILL ATTRACT THE MOST VIEWERS!
This means the viewership, the vox populi, the great unwashed, they determine what is on you TV.


And I for one am growing very weary of that fascism shit, how about you explain to me how the leftist ideal of government controlling industry is any different from industry controlling the government?

Hmmmmmmmmmm?


RE: judgement day cometh's ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: judgement day cometh's post (August 21, 2005 03:19 PM)

Note "fully". You seem to gloss over things quite selectively. A link to the good "Dr's" work or the blog you copied (considering the length of your pasting) would be appropriate and reasonable. Don't you want to provide proper credit to those with whom you agree?

Tell you what. Here's the link to unabridged source, just to make it easier for you when you want to regurgitate. Some feel the original work by Umberto Eco was better than Britt's rewrite, but critics may disagree. Credit for the original thesis should go to Eco though he, apparently, wasn't trying to spin in anti-Americanism.

Anyway, Britt is, simply, an anti-Bush author. There is some debate as to whether he is a PhD of political science. I've searched for his CV but have yet to find it. He may or may not make relevant points and, presumably, his PhD training should provide for him tools to make such analysis in some peer-reviewable manner. Otherwise, he is some guy advancing an agenda. Nothing wrong with that but it's important to know his qualifications if we are to assign to him status and expertise such that his works are authoritative. The Left sure seems to gravitate to "his" points and many have repeated his list of 14. Not much analysis - just the reflexive adoption of his list. I'd like to see his rationale and why he picks some things and excludes others. What are the foundations for his arguments and justifications? Given the infinite number of topics to create a series of threads presumably indicative of fascism, there is considerable wiggle room and cherry-picking for the author to weave a mighty fine tapestry. And that tapestry may well be bunk. If you can provide his CV (my search for it is why there was an extended delay to your last post) and a bit more substance to his list, then that would be appreciated.

It's interesting how his points written in a magazine in 2003 predate the release of his novel June, 2004, a fiction depicting a future America dominated by right-wing extremists. Did he, in true intellectually honest form, disclose his upcoming novel when he released his list? Do you think his "irrefutable" points were adapted from the original Eco work, reworded to incorporate anti-Bush sentiment in a post-9/11 world, and floated about as a sales spiel for his fiction? Nah, that would be too obvious. Truly he must be speaking truth to power.


Anyway, anything on the "Freedom of Speech" questions?

**crickets**

Excellent link AD, t... (Below threshold)
B Moe:


Excellent link AD, thank you!

Mr. Eco's list greatly reinforces my contention that the left has become much more fascistic(?) than the right.

I still prefer not to use the word though because it is so hard to precisely define it is basically a rhetorical hand-grenade for the unfocused and illiterate.


This doesn't surprise me. J... (Below threshold)
Lin:

This doesn't surprise me. Judgement day cometh makes a habit of posting quotes and either not attributing it to the author, or attributing it but not linking it or putting the link in so as to make it harder to check his sources. I'm pretty sure I'v seen his comments on other blogs.

Judgement Day is a typical ... (Below threshold)
Zsa Zsa:

Judgement Day is a typical left wing know it all...OR at least he thinks he knows it all. The radical left wingers believe they are high thinkers! That means they believe they know everything! ... How nice for them to grace their self centeredness on all of us!... Casey Sheehan fought for freedom and democracy and died doing so!...Cindy Sheehan is a grieving mother who needs help! She is so desperate she has managed to trample on the dignity of her son and his belief in what he knew to be right! Our troops deserve respect and support for the work they have accomplished!...Casey Sheehan believed freedom and democracy are worth fighting for!... Judgment needs to bug off!

"When you have corporate... (Below threshold)
Dave:

"When you have corporate pigs picking and choosing for you what will be aired...

Ignoring for the moment the lovely little term "pigs" this ignoramus bandies about, let me just ask judgmental two simple questions, "Who the hell do you think picks what is aired, anyway? Have you been asleep for the past several years when the subject of biased media has been the centerpiece of so many blog discussions?" Of course, this is one of the few times when a media outlet decided NOT to air the far left mumbo jumbo, so maybe that makes a difference in his wee little mind.

Now back to "corporate pigs". Are you for real? I haven't heard that term used in decades - not seriously, anyway.

Reminds me of the di... (Below threshold)
B Moe:


Reminds me of the dimwits caterwauling about the big oil's "Obscene Profits". Even when you teach them how do read the damn financial page and see for themselves the real numbers they don't believe it. I have had moonbats look me right in the eye and say the corporations are obviously hiding money from the shareholders.


Sheehan's housing provider,... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Sheehan's housing provider, the Crawford Peace House, seems a tad over eager to make it's presence known, and involving whom...




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy