CBS playing political favorites...
 

http://cornelldailysun.com/articles/10422/

Obviously, the only articles I can find on this aren't exactly mainstream, and not necessarily unbiased, but all the same it does show a bias on CBS's part. I mean, I've seen the MoveOn commercial, the one that depicts the kids working in the plants, and it is perfectly true.

You could argue that this is always the case, as things the politicians do will always cost future generations, but frankly it is something that is a legitimate statement. As such, I'd like to hear your opinions on this, and to discuss the matter.

There's also this site: http://www.mediareform.net , for people who want to look into the mater of media reform a tad more.

Sky W. Bob

OK what are you talking about? How is this playing favorites? I dont get it? Are you trying to say an anti-drug ad ran last year was a polictical ad? How do you equate telling people not to do drug with an ad claiming Bush will have your kids working as virtual slave labor? The networks have never allowed political ads during the super bowl; because you dont get your way now doesnt mean they are playing favorites. And really, a PETA ad? yeah thats really gonna go over well with the people who watch the superbowl.

I'm going to have to disagree that CBS is playing favorites, going along the lines of what Viper said. Anti-drug campaigns are public service announcements whereas the commercial that MoveOn.org is trying to run is a bit of a smear tactic. I'm not a Bush supporter, I'm not an anyone supporter, I just feel that political ads against candidates have no place anywhere in television. They tend to create an unnecessary bias among people that don't know the candidates' stance on the issues and therefore may be inclined to put faith in the candidate that looks better on TV.

It's also no one's decision but CBS's concerning what commercials they run. If we're going to scream media reform every time a broadcasting company decides they don't want to show one-sided advertisements, we'd better be prepared to face more government regulation (as far as TV and other forms of media go).

If CBS was planning on airing a pro-Bush, anti-democratic nominee commercial without airing one showing the opposite viewpoint, I'd be more inclined to feel they were biased. But that's not the case, and even if it were, it would still be their decision, they'd just have to deal wtih the consequences, like losing viewers. That said, the same thing could happen if they showed this anti-Bush commercial. They could potentially lose a large portion of their audience. Despite any "legitimacy" this commerical may have, its not doing anything to educate the public or carry a positive message, its just throwing shocking images out to a susceptible public.

The thing I don't like about this article is that the author contradicts himself by saying CBS should run this commercial and then later in the article claiming that CBS is not an outlet for free expression. The article also demonizes the ad campaigns run by CBS sponsored by the Office of National Drug Control Policy but fully supports The Sun's decision to run ads for the One Truth Foundation, which the author himself says "the rabidly pro-Israel nonprofit bought ad space in this paper to promulgate its Zionist, anti-Palestinian message." I'm not saying this shouldn't have been allowed because I am a huge advocate of free expression, I'm just saying the author of the article has no right to decide what is acceptable or not for CBS if he is going to willingly promote free speech for everyone.

Seeing the arguement from the prespective of Viper, I'll admit that it seems like this issue isn't as diversive as I once thought. I came into this subject thanks to a e-mail that, while obviously biased, seemed like something I should get upset over.

After being given this reflective outlook, I can see how it isn't nearly as bad as it was stated. All the same, it will all depend on the ads from the ONDCP, as if they're of a Pro-Bush nature, then it will confirm the negative sentiment towards CBS.

Sky Warrior Bob

Now, SWB, here's the 20 dollar question:

If things were on the opposite, and CBS was refusing to air any pro-Bush material before, during, or after the Superbowl, would you still care?

Why the hell should the superbowl have anything but commercials about beer, potato/corn chips, and soft drinks?

I'm serious! Politically charged ads have no place in entertainment events, such as the super bowl. Period.

As stated, I'll admit that I'd have problems. Unless there's anti-Bush broadcasts going on at the same time, I can't say I'd have any problems. This is a question of fairness after all.

If it were opposite, I would have sympathy for pro-Bushites and would see the unfairness of it all, but I don't think I could get my apathy and actually get involved in any sort of Pro-Bush action.

Sky Warrior Bob

Why not have any pro-(insert democratic candidate here) ads? I know you're not only interested in bashing the current president...I hope. But yes, if you're going to have one, you should have the other, you're right to say it's a question of fairness.

Personaly, I'm boycotting the SuperBowl because of said unfair practices by CBS. If someone actualy has the money to pay for a SuperBowl comercal, then they should be able to, It's a perfect time to speak to the american public at large, because the american public at large will be watching. GWB has given major money to CBS, and they are suposedly airing a Bush comercail.

Peace
D-san

CBS owns that bandwidth of public airspace and as such, has the right to selectively choose whatever they want to air. End of discussion. If not airing a politically advertisement bothers you, then change the channel.