ABC, NBC Won't Air Ad Critical of Obama's Health Care Plan

[JBond]

ABC, NBC Won't Air Ad Critical of Obama's Health Care Plan

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/27/abc-nbc-refuse-air-advertisement-critical-obamas-health-care-plan/

The refusal by ABC and NBC to run a national ad critical of President Obama's health care reform plan is raising questions from the group behind the spot -- particularly in light of ABC's health care special aired in prime time last June hosted at the White House

The 33-second ad by the League of American Voters, which features a neurosurgeon who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to the rationing of procedures and medicine, began airing two weeks ago on local affiliates of ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS. On a national level, however, ABC and NBC have refused to run the spot in its present form.

"It's a powerful ad," said Bob Adams, executive director of the League of American Voters, a national nonprofit group with 15,000 members who advocate individual liberty and government accountability. "It tells the truth and it really highlights one of the biggest vulnerabilities and problems with this proposed legislation, which is it rations health care and disproportionately will decimate the quality of health care for seniors."

Adams said the advertisement is running on local network affiliates in states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Maine and Pennsylvania. But although CBS has approved the ad for national distribution and talks are ongoing with FOX, NBC has questioned some of the ad's facts while ABC has labeled it "partisan."

"The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue," spokeswoman Susan Sewell said in a written statement. "Just to be clear, this is a policy for the entire network, not just ABC News."

NBC, meanwhile, said it has not turned down the ad and will reconsider it with some revisions.

"We have not rejected the ad," spokeswoman Liz Fischer told FOXNews.com. "We have communicated with the media agency about some factual claims that require additional substantiation. As always, we are happy to reconsider the ad once these issues are addressed."

Adams objects to ABC's assertion that his group's position is partisan.

"It's a position that we would argue a vast majority of Americans stand behind," he said. "Obviously, it's a message that ABC and the Obama administration haven't received yet."

Dick Morris, a FOX News political analyst and the League of American Voters' chief strategist, conceptualized the advertisement and said its purpose was to "refocus" the debate on health care reform.

"I feel the whole debate on health care reform needed to be refocused on the issue of Medicare," he told FOXNews.com. "Most of the debate had been on issues of socialized medicine and cost. I felt that the impact of the legislation in cutting the Medicare program and enforcing rationing needed to be addressed."

Morris, a onetime advisor to former President Bill Clinton, said he was particularly troubled by ABC's decision not to air the spot.

"It's the ultimate act of chutzpah because ABC is the network that turned itself over completely to Obama for a daylong propaganda fest about health care reform," he said. "For them to be pious and say they will not accept advertising on health care shuts their viewers out from any possible understanding of both sides of this issue."

[Temo]

"We have not rejected the ad," spokeswoman Liz Fischer told FOXNews.com. "We have communicated with the media agency about some factual claims that require additional substantiation. As always, we are happy to reconsider the ad once these issues are addressed."

I have no problem with that.

[wrongway]

I will not watch any of those state run channels. What this president and administration are trying to do to this country make me sick and enraged.

Semper Fi

[JBond]

I have no problem with that.

I would have no problem with it either if they did it consistently. It is clear based on their track record, accuracy of facts is of no concern to them. Why lie about it? Everyone that has not been living under a rock understands the financial connection between Obama and these networks.

[zrinkill]

How could this surprise anyone by this time?

[Temo]

They're not state-run channels, and I have no idea if they do this for other commercials or not.

After all, we only hear about these things if there's a political slant attached, this being a political forum and all.

[JBond]

They're not state-run channels, and I have no idea if they do this for other commercials or not.

After all, we only hear about these things if there's a political slant attached, this being a political forum and all.

Their parent companies stand to make hundreds of billions off Obama if they go along with his plans. They are state run. Obama tells them what to run and how to run it. The latest being the health care infomercial on ABC.

[Wheat]

Odd this article doesn't mention which facts were asked for more info on. You'd think the people who made the ad would be more than happy to talk about those in this story to show how dumb the networks are being.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I have no problem with that.

I don't either Temo, so long as it is practiced as advertised. I think you could make the point that what President Obama advertised on ABC was not necessarily 100% factual and I also think that you could make the case that it was also partisan. The problem, as I see it, is not what ABC is proposing as policy. Rather, it's what they have done in the past.

[JBond]

Odd this article doesn't mention which facts were asked for more info on. You'd think the people who made the ad would be more than happy to talk about those in this story to show how dumb the networks are being.

They have no problems running Obama's version of reality as fact. Health care and Cap and tax scam ads are on all of their stations. It's OK to admit they have an agenda and wish to influence popular opinion. What we need to do is stop referring to them as news agencies and call them what they are. Propaganda supporters for Obama's vision of a redistributive socialist America.

[Wheat]

They have no problems running Obama's version of reality as fact. Health care and Cap and tax scam ads are on all of their stations. It's OK to admit they have an agenda and wish to influence popular opinion. What we need to do is stop referring to them as news agencies and call them what they are. Propaganda supporters for Obama's vision of a redistributive socialist America.

Wait a second. I just asked for the facts that are being disputed.

Also, its called the Bully Pulpit. The President gets that. If you don't like it, then don't watch. But its nothing new. The big chair gets the attention. These people are a special interest group. I just want to know what they are talking about. They could at least give us that. Right?

Nice pull on the Socialist thing. I think they should use that in ads. It might get some traction....if the liberal media ever allows it on the air.

Its a conspiracy, To the compound!

[ABQCOWBOY]

Wait a second. I just asked for the facts that are being disputed.

Also, its called the Bully Pulpit. The President gets that. If you don't like it, then don't watch. But its nothing new. The big chair gets the attention. These people are a special interest group. I just want to know what they are talking about. They could at least give us that. Right?

Nice pull on the Socialist thing. I think they should use that in ads. It might get some traction....if the liberal media ever allows it on the air.

Its a conspiracy, To the compound!

Well, I can see how somebody could get the idea that you are skeptical on the this advocicy groups intentions.

In your original post, you ask in the following: "You'd think the people who made the ad would be more than happy to talk about those in this story to show how dumb the networks are being."

This would lead you to believe that the people who made the add didn't want to address the facts in question. For all we know, they did address them but they just weren't reported. The people who made the add are not the same people, I don't believe, who wrote this article.

It's an easy mistake to make.

[Wheat]

Well, I can see how somebody could get the idea that you are skeptical on the this advocicy groups intentions.

In your original post, you ask in the following: "You'd think the people who made the ad would be more than happy to talk about those in this story to show how dumb the networks are being."

This would lead you to believe that the people who made the add didn't want to address the facts in question. For all we know, they did address them but they just weren't reported. The people who made the add are not the same people, I don't believe, who wrote this article.

It's an easy mistake to make.


1st day in PR 101. If you have the facts on your side. You repeat them over and over again. If they aren't on your side. You never mention them directly.

I think its a simple request. I mean its not like they are saying Obama wants school kids to drink poisoned milk. They have something in their ad that a network is saying they need more information on. What is that "something"? Where is the Birth Certificate?

[ABQCOWBOY]

1st day in PR 101. If you have the facts on your side. You repeat them over and over again. If they aren't on your side. You never mention them directly.

I think its a simple request. I mean its not like they are saying Obama wants school kids to drink poisoned milk. They have something in their ad that a network is saying they need more information on. What is that "something"? Where is the Birth Certificate?

1st day of dealing with the media in Media101. Just because you speak facts doesn't mean that they will be reported. The media is no longer in the business of reporting news. It's in the business of selling a product.

I have no way of confirming if details on what facts were disputed, were discussed or not. I have no way of confirming that whomever wrote this piece left that information out or not. That's all I'm trying to convey here.

[DFWJC]

I have no problem with that.

As long as it works both ways, I agree with that.

But giving Obama an open infomercial to some degree alreay blew that out of the water.

[TheCount]

I don't either Temo, so long as it is practiced as advertised. I think you could make the point that what President Obama advertised on ABC was not necessarily 100% factual and I also think that you could make the case that it was also partisan. The problem, as I see it, is not what ABC is proposing as policy. Rather, it's what they have done in the past.


You're really making it hard to dislike you with all this common sense and logic you've been deploying, ABQ. :mad:

In any case, I agree. Isn't this the second time this has happened or is this an extension of that same issue?

[ABQCOWBOY]

You're really making it hard to dislike you with all this common sense and logic you've been deploying, ABQ. :mad:

In any case, I agree. Isn't this the second time this has happened or is this an extension of that same issue?

I don't know Count but I'm glad you said this. That means that just maybe, there is hope for us all.

:)

[ScipioCowboy]

They're private companies; they're free to be blatant in their bias.

Besides, I would venture the majority of the voting public collects at least as much information from Internet sources as they do television news. ABC and NBC are only sullying their reputations. They certainly aren't silencing any opposition.

[Bob Sacamano]

"It's a position that we would argue a vast majority of Americans stand behind," he said.

yeah, poor and lazy people

[bbgun]

What the hell? I just saw a pro-health care reform ad sponsored by the AARP on NBC. Yet opposing ads are blackballed?

[poke]

What the hell? I just saw a pro-health care reform ad sponsored by the AARP on NBC. Yet opposing ads are blackballed?

i had read that the AARP was not endorsing any plan yet if at all so i am surprised for 2 reasons...yours and what i had read earlier

[JBond]

What the hell? I just saw a pro-health care reform ad sponsored by the AARP on NBC. Yet opposing ads are blackballed?


Welcome to Obama Land. Please enjoy your stay.

[DIAF]

I can't imagine the AARP would endorse that health care plan. Sure it wasn't for something else health-care related?

[JBond]

I can't imagine the AARP would endorse that health care plan. Sure it wasn't for something else health-care related?


Why would the democrat infested AARP not back Obama Care? Are you suggesting Obama care may not be good for our senior citizens? Obama has bought off Big Phamra with promises of extended patents on new drugs and has bought off a couple medical groups with the promise of not cutting government payments for procedures too much. I am sure there is trick he will use to buy off the AARP.

[Cajuncowboy]

I can't imagine the AARP would endorse that health care plan. Sure it wasn't for something else health-care related?

I saw an ad last night on TV for AARP endorsing Obama's HCR. It talked about people getting misinformation and such.

Actually here is the ad.

TNrUAve-opU

[iceberg]

I would have no problem with it either if they did it consistently. It is clear based on their track record, accuracy of facts is of no concern to them. Why lie about it? Everyone that has not been living under a rock understands the financial connection between Obama and these networks.

since when has TV cared about factual claims of a commercial?

[DIAF]

Why would the democrat infested AARP not back Obama Care? Are you suggesting Obama care may not be good for our senior citizens? Obama has bought off Big Phamra with promises of extended patents on new drugs and has bought off a couple medical groups with the promise of not cutting government payments for procedures too much. I am sure there is trick he will use to buy off the AARP.

Because the AARP is also infested with old people. And old people, by and large, want no part of this.

Looks like it IS an AARP ad. Can't imagine a lot of the card-carrying members are real thrilled about this.

[iceberg]

Odd this article doesn't mention which facts were asked for more info on. You'd think the people who made the ad would be more than happy to talk about those in this story to show how dumb the networks are being.

maybe. but the flip side is that while dr pepper or whoever has to show the truth in their advertisting, that doesn't hold with policitcal ads. if this is a political ad from what i understand "factualities" don't matter.

put both sides down and use a neutral set of rules.
1) do these tv channels filter *all* their political ads like this?
2) what are the *facts* in question they want clarified?

if 1 is yes and 2 is legit - ok.

if 1 is no, then i hope these stations don't try to proclaim to be neutral.

[iceberg]

1st day in PR 101. If you have the facts on your side. You repeat them over and over again. If they aren't on your side. You never mention them directly.

I think its a simple request. I mean its not like they are saying Obama wants school kids to drink poisoned milk. They have something in their ad that a network is saying they need more information on. What is that "something"? Where is the Birth Certificate?

it's only a simple request if they make obama clarify points of "fact" also.

the word "fact" can be so misused and guided in here it's a dangerous game to play. as it stands now it's very biased and while i support obama, i DO NOT support our media doing covert ops for the president.

on EITHER side.

that's not their job. if it is then they need to be PR, not a media channel selling ads that fit their agenda.