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.
STATE BLOGS
