LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

Here's the cite
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117952760.html?categoryid=14&cs=1

Here is the key quote

According to the Weinstein Co., NBC's commercial clearance department said in writing that it "cannot accept these spots as they are disparaging to President Bush."

As the article notes - certain NBC affiliates in NY/LA are accepting the advertisement, as are other networks.

Thoughts? Debate?

Some initial concepts/ discussion questions -

1. Private networks often accept voluminous amounts of $ from both sides to run campaign advertisements that in many cases are negative toward a candidate or sitting politician. Why is this advertisement such a problem?

2. What is/are the obligation(s) of a publicly traded company with respect to accepting/rejecting advertisements? Should a network reject revenue that would be beneficial to it's stockholders merely because someone in the company rejects the political message that that person perceives in the advertisement?

I think it's OK for NBC to turn down movie ads - it's not a political advertisement. Besides, the story that will result will bring in more views than the ad would have - so its free advertising for the Chicks!
One of the paradoxes of media, the more outrageous/inflammatory a story, the bigger the play on the "news". For example, the uproar over the Harold "psst, call me, Harold" Ford commercial.

its a private company, they can do whatever they want. If their stockholders don't like they can sell their stock or elect a new board.

I thought NBC was a "smear merchant" that was one of the driving forces behind the liberal media bias?

I would have voted for #4 if it just said they were twits but I don't want to call them un-American. NBC can do what ever the heck they want though if they are really concerned about losing all this money they might want to consider cancelling Fear Factor...just a thought.

Rob,

The Dixie Chicks are still a totally toxic property to country music fans. NPR ran a piece a couple months ago about how the "Chicks" will not get any play on country radio stations, despite the personal reports of station managers really liking the music. The album has undersold, the tours are equally underattended, and its because their former fans haven't forgiven them.

Country music fans are not few in number, much as those who like, uh, actual music would wish. NBC might just have run some advertising demographics and decided it wasn't in the best interests of the company to endure a boycott from running a promo for unpopular public figures. If the spots are disparaging, it only make it worse. Occam's Razor would suggest that they are just following the money.

Jester your dead on. The possible public backlash would effect their other advertisers & could cost them more revenue than they're passing up on now. If it is motivated by political reasons, they're a public company holding any political view other than Switzerland should be problematic.

By that line of reasoning, since NBC has other advertisements for other products then they as a company support those products? I highly doubt that...

It's always been about the money. If you can afford the cost of the advertisement, the company will run it. This is a big shift for NBC and advertising in general.

Jester - thanks for the update - not being a follower of Country music, I wasn't aware of the depth of hatred for the DC. And in respone to your/KB's point, I'd note that people of both political parties still watch "Lost" even though the network run's political advertisements that are critical of both sides political preferences. Why would this create a backlash while putting Rosie O'donnell on The View would not?

I vacillate between #1 and #3

IF I was a shareholder of NBC, and knowing they are floundering (laying of 700 people), to turn down advertisement $ is ridiculous and doing so violates what I think a profit-focused company should do - so much so that were I of that bent (and if I knew enough about this area of law to know if it was truly viable), a shareholder derivative action would be tempting. And in support, I would note with intereste Dan's comment:

If you can afford the cost of the advertisement, the company will run it.

But I do respect those who say it's their business to run - within guidelines/rules set by FCC. That too is a very defensible and appealing perspective.

Rob

Sonny, sorry if you lose advertisers but here's the ad:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uWaAKzrDTRs

Warning: This movie exposes the vast, Right-wing conspiracy to sabotage the Dixie Chicks career....can you handle the TRUTH?