FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

[Lila64]

 

[anitram]

If you want real news, watch BBC World.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Yeah, my order would be Sky (Australian), BBC World, then CNN if I want something US-centric.

 

[INDY500]

A TV station will not air something that is likely to offend its target audience. It was, most likely--and unsurprisingly, a business decision.

It isn't noted in the original post, but are we to assume that this ad IS running or will be run on CNN and MSNBC? Only FNC said no?

Also, no mention of this story at ccrjustice.org.

 

[melon]

It isn't noted in the original post, but are we to assume that this ad IS running or will be run on CNN and MSNBC? Only FNC said no?

I don't know, but it's possible. Most TV networks/stations run any ad attached to a check, so I wouldn't take it as a tacit endorsement. Again, it's business. FOX News, in a cost-benefit analysis, decided that the cost of running the ad outweighed the benefit of the ad revenue, likely due to considerations about its right-wing branding and target audience.

Economics, at the heart of the matter, is amoral.

 

[yolland]

According to the Chicago Tribune, yes, it's scheduled to run on MSNBC and CNN.

And ccrjustice.org's page for the ad in question boasts "This ad was rejected by Fox News. Find out Why" which I guess qualifies as a 'mention.'

However, while I generally agree with Earnie's characterization of Fox News' penchant for histrionic pandering (as well as the depressing signs of its spread to other networks), I think melon's right about the actual thread topic--there's no story here really.

 

[INDY500]

I don't know, but it's possible. Most TV networks/stations run any ad attached to a check, so I wouldn't take it as a tacit endorsement. Again, it's business. FOX News, in a cost-benefit analysis, decided that the cost of running the ad outweighed the benefit of the ad revenue, likely due to considerations about its right-wing branding and target audience.

Economics, at the heart of the matter, is amoral.

Or...using your "target audience" theory, maybe the CCR felt running an ad accusing President Bush of "destroying the Constitution" on CNN or MSNBC would be an exercise in redundancy.
Or...maybe it's simply that the Center for Constitutional Rights choose Fox News because they wanted their ad to, you know, actually be seen.

 

[melon]

Or...using your "target audience" theory, maybe the CCR felt running an ad accusing President Bush of "destroying the Constitution" on CNN or MSNBC would be an exercise in redundancy.

The Chicago Tribute, above, answers this point.

Or...maybe it's simply that the Center for Constitutional Rights choose Fox News because they wanted their ad to, you know, actually be seen.

If that was the case, then they'd be better off advertising on the national broadcast networks. Cable television is so fragmented that no single station generally achieves more than a 3 rating, on average. That's on par with PBS.

 

[INDY500]

According to the Chicago Tribune, yes, it's scheduled to run on MSNBC and CNN.

And ccrjustice.org's page for the ad in question boasts "This ad was rejected by Fox News. Find out Why" which I guess qualifies as a 'mention.'

However, while I generally agree with Earnie's characterization of Fox News' penchant for histrionic pandering (as well as the depressing signs of its spread to other networks), I think melon's right about the actual thread topic--there's no story here really.

Did you have to "search" the site? http://ccrjustice.org doesn't list it under "latest news", or "press releases." Anyway, thanks for answering my question and providing the link.
I'm just in shock that the Chicago Trib would actually, and rightly, label Media Matters "a liberal advocacy group."

Surely they must know that will only cause people to question the newspaper's validity (or lack thereof).

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Would this be the same Danny Glover that has nothing but praise and admiration for Communist dictators like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez? If so, are we really supposed to take seriously anything this man says about human rights, democracy, constitutional protections or freedom of the press?

So he's narrating it. Does that automatically make the argument of the ad any less valid? I didn't even know, until you brought it up, what Danny Glover's political views were, and I don't know how many others out there are aware of that. I highly doubt most viewers are going to be that concerned about Glover's personal views. I'd think they'd be more interested in the ad's topic.

Viva Fox News Channel.

Ergh. If you like the channel, fine, and while I fully agree news stations should try and remain as neutral and calm as possible, if Fox News wants a more conservative leaning, just like some other media outlets have a bit more of a liberal leaning, that's fine-keep the balance and all that good stuff.

But the fact that Fox tries to insist it's "fair and balanced" is laughable. And, as pointed out, they're just as prone to hysteria as any other news channel is. The few times I've come across that channel all I see is a bunch of people yelling over each other, and it's obnoxious to listen to. I fully agree, the other news outlets should not dumb themselves down to that level, it's sad some are.

Anywho, regarding the actual topic at hand...meh. It's their channel, they don't have to run the ad if they wish not to, but it's a shame they aren't. I think that'd be one worth showing.

Angela

 

[DaveC]

I didn't say Viva CCR.

But I will!

It ain't me
It ain't me
I ain't no fortunate sonnnnn

 

[maycocksean]

Earnie Shavers and Melon. You both nailed it.

 

[MaxFisher]

A TV station will not air something that is likely to offend its target audience. It was, most likely--and unsurprisingly, a business decision.

Thanks for your posts Melon. You state the obvious instead of the typical FYM liberal/conservative knee jerk rhetoric.

 

[melon]

Thanks for your posts Melon. You state the obvious instead of the typical FYM liberal/conservative knee jerk rhetoric.

I'm glad you've noticed that. I'm trying very hard to go beyond mere ideology, and try to get to what I'd like to consider to be "common sense." Hopefully, that will allow us to progress and move forward in society, rather than to continue with the same-old partisan bickering. I think that it's the best hope for our future.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Fox News is too easy a target to take pot shots at, and it's already been taken care of in this thread.

The ad, however, is a pretty shit on production values for something going on national cable networks. How hard is it to put a camera on a freakin' dolley and to stick another light in front of Danny Glover so he looks like less of a raving lunatic?

 

[AchtungBono]

I wonder what documentation they would need.


mediamatters.org

Fox News has refused to air an ad produced by the Center for Constitutional Rights that criticizes the Bush administration for "destroying the Constitution" by the use of renditions, torture, and other tactics. The ad, "Rescue the Constitution," which is narrated by actor Danny Glover, can be viewed here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnR9M8cG_6s

In an email provided to Media Matters for America by the Center, Fox News account executive Erin Kelly told Owen Henkel, the Center's e-communications manager, that Fox would not run the ad:

Hi Owen --

We cannot approve the spot with it being Danny Glover's opinion that the Bush Administration is destroying the Constitution. If you have documentation that it is indeed being destroyed, we can look at that.

Sorry about that,

Erin

In 2005, Fox refused to run an ad critical of then-Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito Jr., who had been nominated by President Bush to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

This is the CCR site

http://ccrjustice.org/

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR
is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.

Fox News is absolutely right!
How can they air an ad with such an outrageous claim without anything to back it up with?
Fox News only tells the truth and therefore it would be against their policy to run a story without authenticating it first.

Imagine if I made a post here that accuses Bono of being the mastermind of 911......of course you'd think I was insane and of course you wouldn't believe me without proof.

YOU GO FOX NEWS!!!..........

 

[AchtungBono]

Would this be the same Danny Glover that has nothing but praise and admiration for Communist dictators like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez? If so, are we really supposed to take seriously anything this man says about human rights, democracy, constitutional protections or freedom of the press?

Viva Fox News Channel.

You're my new best friend....lol

 

[AchtungBono]

Or...using your "target audience" theory, maybe the CCR felt running an ad accusing President Bush of "destroying the Constitution" on CNN or MSNBC would be an exercise in redundancy.
Or...maybe it's simply that the Center for Constitutional Rights choose Fox News because they wanted their ad to, you know, actually be seen.

ZING!!!!!

 

[Diemen]

Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

Fox News only tells the truth

Oh come on, you can't possibly be that brainwashed.

 

[AchtungBono]

Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

Oh come on, you can't possibly be that brainwashed.

Since when is listening to the truth the same as being brainwashed?

Just because Fox is the ONLY news outlet that doesn't trash Bush does that mean they're bad - SOMEONE has to be the voice of reason and truth out there, and I'm glad it's THEM.

 

[martha]

Re: Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

Just because Fox is the ONLY news outlet that doesn't trash Bush does that mean they're bad -

Yes.

 

[phillyfan26]

Re: Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

Since when is listening to the truth the same as being brainwashed?

Just because Fox is the ONLY news outlet that doesn't trash Bush does that mean they're bad - SOMEONE has to be the voice of reason and truth out there, and I'm glad it's THEM.

Well it does mean they're bad, by being duped by Bush completely, but also, they do plenty of other things that make them ten times worse than any other network. One of them is Bill O'Reilly, who I honestly think is a mean, angry, selfish person who borderlines on insanity about half the time. If that person, who at best could be considered "a decent human being," is supposed to be your big draw ... you've got a lot of issues to sort out.

Fox News is much more conservative than any of the others are liberal. But they're the only ones who keep up the "Fair & Balanced" bullshit.

Someone does have to be the voice of reason and truth, but it's not Fox News. As Stephen Colbert put it: "Fox gives you both sides of the story: the president's and the vice president's."

If you watch Fox News for anything other than shits and giggles, you either don't care that it's conservative or completely naive.

 

[phillyfan26]

Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

Imagine if I made a post here that accuses Bono of being the mastermind of 911......of course you'd think I was insane and of course you wouldn't believe me without proof.

Question: How does that example have anything to do with this ad? I mean, they DID back it up. You know, when they said "the use of renditions, torture, and other tactics." At least that's an argument. They specifically cite things Bush does that go against the Constitution.

 

[BVS]

Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

Fox News only tells the truth and therefore it would be against their policy to run a story without authenticating it first.

Yep, nothing but the truth.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

What documentation is there to back up all the other ads that Fox runs? But those aren't "outrageous", right? Nah Bush has done no harm to our Constitution, not at all. It's stronger than it ever was.

I am just trying to figure out if that Erin was being sarcastic or serious.

 

[AchtungBono]

Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

Question: How does that example have anything to do with this ad? I mean, they DID back it up. You know, when they said "the use of renditions, torture, and other tactics." At least that's an argument. They specifically cite things Bush does that go against the Constitution.

Since when is saving lives against the constitution? You don't know what kind of information the government is obtaining thru these methods that have prevented countless attacks from happening again in the U.S. .

Bottom line - You fight fire with fire and terrorism with terrorism because that's the only language the terrorists understand.
You don't fight terrorism by gentle persuasion.....only by brute force.

I APPLAUD the U.S. government for going after the terrorists using their own methods, and I applaud President Bush for doing his job.

 

[martha]

Re: Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

I APPLAUD the U.S. government for going after the terrorists using their own methods

Which are against the US Constitution.

So you've proven Danny Glover's point?

 

[BVS]

Re: Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

Since when is saving lives against the constitution? You don't know what kind of information the government is obtaining thru these methods that have prevented countless attacks from happening again in the U.S. .

Bottom line - You fight fire with fire and terrorism with terrorism because that's the only language the terrorists understand.
You don't fight terrorism by gentle persuasion.....only by brute force.

I APPLAUD the U.S. government for going after the terrorists using their own methods, and I applaud President Bush for doing his job.

That's all fine and dandy if you applaud someone becoming a monster to defeat a monster.

But the constitution doesn't allow it. That's something you haven't seemed to ever understood.

 

[AchtungBono]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FOX News Refuses To Run "Rescue The Constitution" Ad

That's all fine and dandy if you applaud someone becoming a monster to defeat a monster.

But the constitution doesn't allow it. That's something you haven't seemed to ever understood.

The only thing I understand is that the U.S. was brutally attacked on 9/11 and 3,000 people were murdered.......and their murderers must be dealt with viciously.

How can the U.S. ever hope to fight the war on terror with one arm tied behind its back??

If you or your family were threatened, you'd make damm sure they were safe and sound using any means necessary to provide for their safety - and so would I.

I've said on more than one occasion that the constitution was drafted in the 18th century and must be updated and revised to meet 21st century conditions and threats.

While we're on the subject......tell the victims of the Nebraska mall shooter how wonderful the constitution is.....it's a great thing the right to bear arms.....where anyone can buy a gun and go on a rampage whenever they want - hallelujah and god bless America.......

With all due respect to the constitution, we aren't living in the same world as the founding fathers were. We face new challenges and greater dangers and I'm sure Al Quaida would have made mincemeat out of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had they been around at that time.

BVS - as always, this post is NOT intended to insult or offend you (or anyone else) - just to get my point across.

 

[DaveC]

This is getting great.

Idiocy abounds.