Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Comcast Censoring Political Ads Critical of Its Actions

Posted by Matt Stoller, Open Left at 4:59 AM on June 10, 2008.


The corporate giant is limiting free speech to cover its own ass.
censorship
censorship

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace in your
mailbox!

 

Glenn Greenwald is reporting that Comcast is refusing to run an ad critical of Representative Chris Carney, an ad which features Comcast itself as a major donor to and beneficiary of Carney's policy choices.  The network told him that they would "face potential liability for any defamation contained in the spot."

Comcast in this case concocted a factual inaccuracy and is refusing to run the ad.  While there's no excuse for this blatant conflict of interest, the company created an artifice of legal barriers that most stations simply do not.  Censoring advertisements from network and cable TV is a common practice in our political discourse, one that often goes unremarked.  Here are some recent examples:

  • In 2004, CBS refused to run an anti-Bush Moveon.org ad on the Super Bowl, citing its policy of refusing to run ads on "controversial issues of public importance".  At the same time, the network ran an ad for the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, a group known for laughably inaccurate portrayals of a controversial subject.  In all likelihood, this ad space was donated by CBS to the Partnership for a Drug Free America as part of a public service announcement program, for which the company receives tax advantages.


  • In 2004, the Minneopolis Star Tribune refused to run an ad for the pride celebration that showed two men kissing, calling it 'inflammatory'.

  • In 2005, Rolling Stone refused to run an ad for a new translation of the bible.  The Onion, Modern Bride, MTV.com, and AOL all ran the ad.

  • In 2007, Fox News refused to run an ad featuring Danny Glover titled 'Rescue the Constitution.'  Here's the ad.




  • CBS and NBC refused to run ad an for the United Church of Christ obliquely welcoming gay and lesbian members, calling it 'controversial'.


Religious materials from both the right and left and political materials from the left seem to be especially 'objectionable' in corporate parlance.  I just got back from the Conference on Media Reform, and I'll have more on the history of the various media institutions in this country.  Let's just say there's a reason for the bipartisan deep anger at the hammerlock these large and irresponsible millionaire executives have on our discourse.

There is simply no reasonable argument that a station has to turn down a mainstream political advertisement making an indictment of a politician based on his or her policy choices.  None.  There is nothing pornographic or dangerous in these ads (what constitutes those qualities is an interesting yet separate question), this is just an abuse of power.

Any enterprising Congressperson would do well to hold hearings on advertising censorship, and ask why the massive subsidies from the public in the form of cable monopolies, broadcast licenses, and regulatory favors should go to organizations that censor the very public from which they feed.

Meanwhile, Chris Carney should hope that no evidence comes out that he pressured the stations to refuse this ad.  My guess is that he did not; Comcast needs no additional incentive to refuse to indict its own business or a Congressman it supports.

This is a serious indictment of our media system, it's one we've lived with for years, and it's one we need to see ended.  It is censorship, after all, of political speech, and woefully and entirely unAmerican.

Digg!

Tagged as: censorship, comcast, chris carney


Murdoch and Murdoch Flak Confused About Racism, Truth
What must it be like to do spin for News Corps?
Post by Tana Ganeva. November 11, 2009.
Right-Wing Pundits Now Lecturing the Military: Bases Need More Guns
Logically more guns would mean less shootings, right? Wait ...
Post by Eric Boehlert. November 11, 2009.
Public Option Back on the Chopping Block
Adding to the problem of scared Dems is the Dems who insist upon being catered to. Lieberman has now been joined by Ben Nelson.
Post by mcjoan. November 11, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Glad to see a story
Posted by: Lauren on Jun 10, 2008 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope COMCAST gets what they deserve. I got emergency broadcasted by them again this morning. It pisses me off. This time it was Chuck Todd. It's all political.

I tried to call MSNBC but they don't have anyone who can take my call until the show is over 9:30 eastern time. I could email them but I'm tired of it. I wanted to complain to a human being, get some emotional reaction.

Personally I think having my service cut like that is incredible news. I would think they would want to be all over it. I don't get why the receptionist doesn't even ask me for my phone number.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

VIOLATERS OF AMENDMENT I of THE BILL OF RIGHTS!!! COMCAST SENT A BROCHURE BETTER READ CAREFULLY!!!
Posted by: Turiye on Jun 10, 2008 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The bill I received in March had a thick brochure, I read every damn word, then I called to cancel. READ THE FINE PRINT! There Is jingoistic wordsmithing to SCREW YOU AND ME!!! They will have the legal ability to deny you a day in court to sue them if implicated in the ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING FISA DEBACLE! By simply continuing to pay your Comcast bill it is an implication of agreement so BE a VIGILANT ADVOCATE!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SCREW IT! CALL the HOUSE AND DEMAND THEY NOT WITHDRAW DENNIS KUCINICH'S RESOLUTION of IMPEACHMENT!
Posted by: Turiye on Jun 10, 2008 7:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1-800- 828-0498 1-800-459-1887

Thank Dennis! Call Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Shiela Jackson-Lee, Robert Wexler, John Conyers and your own Representative, your cable can wait, this country CANNOT!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Choices, Choices, NOT
Posted by: QQOblivion on Jun 10, 2008 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comcast is known for being underhanded and for blocking items that contrast with its political agenda, as well as slowing certain types of data in its high-speed internet service.
But the problem with switching companies is that there are very few other choices for broadband and cable, if any other choices at all, in most of America.

Contrast that with Europe, where, because of a greater amount of regulation, there are far more choices for broadband (I don't know about cable in Europe), and the service is more reliable, faster, and, yes, much cheaper than in America.

I, on the other hand, have a choice between Comcast and Qwest for high-speed internet. (I guess Qwest is SLIGHTLY less evil than Comcast.) So I opt for dial-up. (I might upgrade to a still-slow DSL plan.) And I don't have cable. (I don't bother watching the right-wing bullcrap on cable news anyway.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Choices, Choices, NOT Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Choices, Choices, NOT Posted by: indepentent
Comment from Comcast
Posted by: SenaFitzmaurice on Jun 10, 2008 12:39 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comcast deeply appreciates citizen concerns regarding alleged wiretapping under the FISA laws. For our part, it is a matter of public record that we have not made our systems available to the government for any customer surveillance without valid legal process, and we have not lobbied on FISA legislation.
While we strongly believe in vigorous debate on these and other issues, we must also respect laws on defamation. Our outside counsel has advised us that the advertising in question could violate laws against defamation because the ads claim or that some companies violated criminal or other laws without any court finding of such a violation. Declining such advertising in these circumstances is standard and responsible practice. Free speech is an essential value, but fairness requires that we all observe the fundamental rules of due process and defamation laws.

Attached is a copy of the letter to Mr. Greenwald.

Sena Fitzmaurice,Comcast

Dear Mr. Greenwald:
We are writing on behalf of our client, Comcast Cable Communications, in response to your request that Comcast run a television spot regarding U.S. Rep. Chris Carney, sponsored by the so-called "Blue America PAC." Since this spot would not be considered a candidate "use" under Section 315 of the Communications Act (47 USC 315), Comcast would face potential liability for any defamation contained in the spot.
As you know, the spot contains the following audio regarding Rep. Carney: "He wants to pardon phone companies who broke the law and gave thousands to his campaign." That audio is spoken over a video image showing the logos of the following entities: AT&T, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association ("NCTA"), Verizon, Embarq and Comcast. A Monopoly-type "Get out of jail free" card is then superimposed over the images of the logos. Thus, the express language of the spot combined with the images shown implies that the entities whose logos are shown "broke the law" and face either "jail" or a potential "pardon," both of which would be applicable to a criminal conviction.
In support of the statement that these entities "broke the law," you have provided links to the website of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF") and, in the case of Verizon, the ACLU, "demonstrating that listed telecoms are defendants in the lawsuits based on illegal spying." For the proposition that "[t]hese telecoms broke the law with their illegal spying," you provide a link to your own opinion blog in Salon.com. None of the links provided implicate NCTA in any way.
Moreover, all of the lawsuits for which you have provided links are civil suits that would not result in criminal liability, even if decided against the defendants. More importantly, however, there have been no adjudications in any of these lawsuits against the defendants, including Verizon and AT&T. As I am sure you know, the mere filing of a lawsuit, whether civil or criminal, is not equivalent to a finding of liability or wrongdoing by the defendant unless so decided by a judge following prosecution of the litigation (or, in the case of a criminal complaint, a guilty plea by the defendant). In fact, the EFF website shows that the civil suits against Comcast (and other carriers) have been dismissed: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/mdl3.pdf.
Under the circumstances, the spot you have provided is factually incorrect and potentially defamatory against the entities shown. Under Pennsylvania law, a false allegation of criminal wrongdoing is considered to be defamation per se. While Comcast tries to accommodate all requests to run political advertising, regardless of the position taken (even if critical of Comcast itself), the company cannot accept a spot that is false and defamatory. Accordingly, we have advised Comcast to decline your request to run this spot, and they have concluded that they have no choice but to do

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Comment from Comcast Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN