Re: Washington Post Article | My Subject: Censorship by Media Outlets of Presidential Political Ads.
(News Group Post)Tim Harris wrote:
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2000/A7685-2000Aug22.html> Lupe Posted:
>Responding to Republican threats, television stations in three key
> congressional districts have pulled Democratic attack ads on the
> grounds that they distorted the GOP candidates' voting records.
>
> Both the cable company Comcast in New Jersey and four network
> affiliates in Lexington, Ky., have decided in the past week to stop
> airing ads funded by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
> questioning GOP candidates' votes on education bills. Two Mississippi
> television stations have temporarily suspended a similar ad targeting
> an Arkansas Republican's stand on prescription drugs.
If only the "truth" as determined by broadcast outlet's i.e., the "truth squad policeman," is broadcast,—we might not have to pass campaign finance reform. Because a large share of those political campaign ads have questionable claims in them and most of them tend to distort the records of the opponents or the reality of the situation.> Lupe Posted:
> Donald F. McGahn II, general counsel for the House Republicans'
> campaign arm, had warned station managers in Kentucky and New Jersey
> that "failure to remove the ad from your broadcast schedule could
> leave you and your station exposed to possible legal action."I fail to see how a broadcast outlet could be held liable for a paid political commercial, only the party responsible for putting the political spot on the air should be liable when it comes to political spots. To do otherwise will lead to the media outlet previewing the submitted spots and possibly holding one political party candidate to a much higher standard than another.
As things stand now media outlets can arbitrarily refuse to run paid spots by other than Federal candidates, (correct me if this has changed).
> Lupe Posted:
> Station managers across the country, for their part, are now
> struggling to determine the accuracy of new ads. Bill Stanley, general
> manager of ABC affiliate WTVQ in Lexington, said the station's lawyer
> became convinced Fletcher had supported education funding increases
> despite the Democrats' claims.A lot of what is in the content of a media spot is misleading, I and when it is the media can point it out, hopefully, with equity to all parties concerned. It should never be the media's job to police the truthfulness of the content of political spots. They can comment on them but they should not be policing them.
What if a candidate or a president submits their speech to the electronic media and they at the last minute decide not to cover his speech and let's say the print press does the same, that would be the end of free speech and even money couldn't buy it! Be careful what you are for!
> Lupe Posted:
> "When the voting record said he voted for this, that to me is the
> facts," Stanley said.What is pointed out above should not give a media outlet the right to censor political speech of candidates for elective office.
> Lupe Posted:
> But in Little Rock, KTHV president Susan Newkirk wrote the Democrats
> that her station would keep running an ad blasting Rep. Jay Dickey
> (R-Ark.) on prescription drugs because her station "is not in a
> position to arbitrate the truth or falsity of the ad in question."KTHV president Susan Newkirk is taking the correct position on this political free speech issue!
> Lupe Posted:
> David Cavileer, general manager of WXVT in Greenville, Miss., said he
> was still deciding what to do with the same ad.[Here is what you left out that was in the same paragraph above and which is a critical part of the context of that content.] "I'm trying to review these piles of paper with each side saying the other guy's wrong." Cavileer said. "I think they're both splitting hairs." Washington Post Article, see above link. (Darrell)
I would take Ms Newkirk's position unless you want a hell of a fight by Democrats over this issue of political free speech without pre censorship!
We are watching every stinking political partisan move you media outlets make and that would be good cause to strip your license and let a nonpartisan entity have it!We citizens can't stop the distortions that I witness everyday on the Fox News Network and others. The broadcast frequencies are owned by the public, and the public should be able to counter major distortion and political bias by broadcasters, and/or, file a class action lawsuit against broadcasters for not broadcasting in the civic public interest, need, and necessity of the general public.
THE REAL POLITICAL ISSUES:
THE REAL POLITICAL ISSUESDarrell Udelhoven, a.k.a., udarrell
If you don't have Newsgroups setup in your browser then use the best search engine I have found, http://www.metacrawler.com/index.html (bookmark it) then click on the dropdown arrow where it says 'The Web' click on "Newsgroups." Click on Phrase then type in Darrell Udelhoven (or another name) in the search window and click search. It will take you to Deja News and a list of posts and replys to those posts. Use your back button after reading a post.
Take some time and learn where your vote will do the most good for the most people.
MY REAL POLITICAL ISSUES PEOPLE EMPOWERMENT PAGES
My People Empowerment Pages
Towards a More Democratic Capitalism
by Jeff Gates
Democratic Record
Democratic Party Position Paper
DNC Position Paper - Labor Quality of Life!
The Real Political Issues and People Empowerment Series
Posted: 08/23/00; Revised: 05/07/08
Empowerment Communications
Darrell Udelhoven
Copyright © 1997-2008 All rights reserved