Here is something to get your blood boiling. I heard about this the other day, but just had a chance to read the news and watch the ad.Watch the ad here: (quicktime) http://www.fenn-group.com/usact/fix/Fix_quicktime.htmlThen read the news story here:
4 Networks Reject Ad Opposing Bush on LawsuitsBy ROBERT PEAR, The New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/national/01ads.html?adxnnl=0Am I crazy, or is this corporate censorship based on conflict of interest?President Bush is selling his Tort Reform Plan of as a way to bring down healthcare costs and insurance premiums for doctors by eliminating "frivolous law suits," but there is little doubt that large corporations will benefit the most from President Bush's Tort Reform plan of capping awards in lawsuits. Numerous investigative reports and perceptive journalists, who have looked into the details, report that capping awards does almost nothing to bring down healthcare costs or doctors¹ insurance rates. What brings down insurance is effective insurance regulation like what they have in California. They also explain that the real effect of capping jury awards regardless of a lawsuits merit, severely limits an individual¹s ability to stand up to the powerful when they are wronged. The court system is often the last place to hold powerful corporations accountable, so that the result of limiting their damages no matter how bad they hurt people will result in a windfall for BIG BUSINESS and allow them to continue damaging consumers without significant consequence.In other words, the four networks rejecting the ad are owned by corporations that stand to benefit the most from people remaining uninformed about the real cost of Bush's tort reform. In case you don't know, NBC is owned by General Electric; ABC is owned by Dysney; CBS is owned by Viacom and Fox is owned by Rupert Murdock who wants to rule the world. If there was any doubt that our media needs to be independent from major corporations, here is another perfect example.Thanks for listening to me rant yet again. I feel better now.WendyPS. If this pisses you off too, do what I did and TAKE ACTION:
---------------------------ACTION ITEM---------------------------Write the FCC and the networks to let them know how you feel. Here are some useful guidelines:*Talking points*Write in a respectful nonpartisan way, so they will hear your very valid argument. Don't "yell" or call them "corporate media" - pretend you're assuming they will do the right thing. Pick one point and make it briefly:1. This action gives the appearance of stifling public debate on an issue the public, in a democracy, needs to be informed about. If this type of advertising is refused - to be consistent - so should campaign ads, as they are controversial as well. 2. It appears that there have been pundits paid by the administration who have covertly hawked administration positions on YOUR network. Yet you refuse overt paid ads debating a public policy direction because it is controversial. They are using public airwaves and are accountable to us. Could they please explain? 3. If their network insists that this type of advertising be refused, they MUST also refuse groups wishing to advocate FOR Bush's position on civil litigation. 4. How much money did their network receive from Swiftboat ads? What is the distinction?5. Is the new definition of "controversial" anything opposing the Bush administration's view? If so, how is your network different that state run television?*Addresses*(you may choose to cc your letters openly to the FCC fccinfo@fcc.gov or find specific addresses here: http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html
ABC
ABC.Audience.Relations@abc.comOR netaudr@abc.com
NBCHeadquarters E-mail: http://www.capwiz.com/lwv/mail/compose/?indid=1407&type=ME
FOXaskfox@foxinc.com
CBSclick on feedback link at bottom of this page: http://www.cbs.com/#Finally:KUDOS to CNN to balance the hate mail they will likely get for airing the ad
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form3.html?2
