Why are the T.V. channels allowing these lying political ads?????

[babsbunny]

I just emailed the channel I watch and told them about factcheck.org, and snopes.com. I keep seeing the ad where Obama's taxplan is a disaster for America. Here is what factcheck.org says.....

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_tax_deceptions.html

[salonghorn70]

1. Ever Hear of The First Amendment?

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. The first amendment requires TV stations to take money to...

.... run misleading and dishonest ads for political candidates?

[RedShoes]

7. pretty much. There is no law against lying.

nt

[onenote]

11. more to the point, there is a law against censoring ads from political candidates

Do you really want the networks and local stations to sit in judgment of all political candidate advertising and to have the discretion to decide which particular ads to run?

[Smarmie Doofus]

13. They don't already 'sit in judgement'? They've never turned-down...

...GLBT advocacy ads ? Not *ever*?

If I want to run on an antiwar platform... and wish to use photos and clips of dead American GIs rotting away in the sun and/or dead and mangled bodies of Iraqi babies, the law says the station may not censor the ads?

And...if they may not censor the ads, may they *refuse* to accept the ad based on... well, whatever they wish to say they are basing it on?

[onenote]

16. political broadcasting 101

during the election season, television stations are required to make "reasonable time" available for federal candidates (not state, local, however). Moreover, for any election, if a station runs an ad for a legally qualified candidate, the station may not censor the ad. Thus, the courts have held, among other things, that a political candidate may demand that a station run an ad that shows an aborted fetus.

http://www.rcfp.org/news/1996/1007d.html

[Smarmie Doofus]

18. That's interesting......

>>>television stations are required to make "reasonable time" available for federal candidates (not state, local, however).>>>>

What is meant by "reasonable time"... or is that left deliberately vague by the courts?

Also... is there any connection, legally or conceptually , between "equal time"( Not as in the Fairness Doctrine ) and "reasonable time"... i.e. can a station legitimately tilt toward one candidate and against another by allocating time unequally?

Finally, are the broadcasters required to charge the campaigns equitably? And how could it be determined that they are... *IF* they are so required?

[onenote]

20. equal time actually is equal opportunities

There are three principal rules governing the broadcasting of political ads.

The reasonable access rule, which applies to federal candidates and requires that a "reasonable" amount of time be made available.

The equal opportunities rule, which requires that competing candidates be able to purchase comparable time for advertising as their opponents.

And the "lowest unit rate" rule, which governs the price that broadcasters can charge candidates.

here is a link to a detailed primer: http://www.tab.org/documents/member-services/legalguide-political.pdf

[Born_A_Truman]

17. Those are "issue" ads

not for candidates. Not the same.

[Smarmie Doofus]

19. In the first example ....GLBT... Yes.

But not really in the second. The issue ( war and it's consequences) is embedded in the candidacy itself.

Can the broadcaster say, "Take out all that nasty stuff, or we won't run it."?

[onenote]

21. no, the broadcaster can't say "take out that nasty stuff or we won't run it"

Not if its an ad from a legally qualified candidate.

http://www.rcfp.org/news/1996/1007d.html

[billyoc]

2. Selling ads is their only source of revenue.

[onenote]

4. because its the law: No censorship of political ads.

Section 315(a) of the Communications Act:
"If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section."

[Bread and Circus]

5. Networks absolutely singlehandedly refuse to run political messages all the time.

[onenote]

10. for qualified political candidates? show me an example

[Smarmie Doofus]

14. What's a "qualified political canddiate"? nt

[Smarmie Doofus]

15. OK, I see it defined in post #4. nt

[cosmik debris]

6. Seriously? Do you really expect truth from TV advertising?

That's a bizarre notion. I hope you grow out of it.

[TZ]

8. They allow misleading commercials all the time

Does "Smiling Bob" mean anything to you?

(Spokesman for Enzyte-a company CONVICTED of fraud and yet, the ads still run)

[old mark]

9. First, because they get paid to do that, second, maybe because

the owners of those big companies support the fucking crooks in power now and want to entend the regime.


Do you think any other commercials are truthful?
Why should selling a politician be any different than selling a Ped Egg?


mark

[lamp_shade]

12. $$$$$$$$$$

[AlinPA]

22. Money. But will Fox "News" accept ads from Obama/Biden? Doubtful they would

allow them to run on their propaganda channel even if there is money to be made.