Strangling Public Debate
by Russ Baker
Airing ads about controversial issues is crucial for a healthy democracy.
http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9746good article, and speaking of Comcast..
here's a snip:
<snip>
In the end, the controversy itself garnered considerable publicity for MoveOn and its point. That makes it the odd "success" among untold other cases of speech-suppression and broadcaster bias. An especially interesting case involves the Marijuana Policy Project, a D.C.-based advocacy group engaged in a little-noticed legal struggle that could have far-ranging implications. The group wants presidential candidates to firm up their positions on the medically-accepted value of marijuana in treating certain serious illnesses (cultivation and possession is currently allowed in eight states with physician's approval but totally forbidden by federal statute.) MPP planned to place about $10,000 worth of issue ads in New Hampshire in anticipation of that state's primary. But when their local rep contacted ComCast—America's largest cable company—for a rate card, they were told that the corporate legal department would not make one available to the organization. This was based not on the ad content—the company hadn't even seen that yet—only on the name of the sponsoring organization.
Perhaps it was merely principle that led ComCast to recently decide to donate a stunning $50 million worth of public service announcements demonizing marijuana—the kind of announcements best described as scare ads—while refusing an ad calling for compassionate exceptions to the nation's drug laws for medically approved treatments. But there's no question that the political grass is greener on the "Just Say No" side: the White House drug czar alone plans to spend $145 million over three years on ads warning of marijuana dangers.
What's good for ComCast's soul (and political connections) isn't necessarily good for democracy. Almost by definition, the boldest stands involve verboten topics. If ComCast's example of choosing which side of a controversial issue to freeze out of its advertising lineup becomes the norm, political debate in this country would be restricted dramatically, and original thinking and boldness on the campaign trail further discouraged.
ComCast, with 21 million subscribers in 35 states, was clearly seeking to avoid becoming a story itself when it declined to put its decision into writing for MPP. Apparently, though, the cable giant doesn't have to justify itself. Legally, any private company can turn down any ad it doesn't like. I asked the ACLU about this, and its spokesperson concurred. There's only one thing that these broadcasters and cable operators cannot turn down: ads for candidates in national elections.
And here's where the pro-free speech forces can make an innovative, slightly subversive countermove.....
<snip>
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
