Fox Refuses To Air Gay N.Y. Candidate's TV Ad

[Spastik_Roach]

Now I wonder if this person was not gay and republican but put, say, John Kerrys head on a naked torso?

It only proves FOX's right wing conservatist stance more and more, especially seeing as the other stations will air it.

[Matra et Alpine]

they do have the right to choose who they let advertise, you know

the BEST reason why advertising for political posts should NOT be left to the vagaries of commercial decision makers with their OWN agendas.

Are you telling us that in the US the ONLY way to get air time for a political candidate is to buy it ? Is their no guaranteed air-time for candidates to put their case ? Whata bout within channel programming, are political shows required to give equal comment and air time to all candidates ?

Is there NO check and balance to prevent this level of suppression by a media channel ??

Scary

Please tell me I'm wrong !

[Wouter Melissen]

This might actually work out just fine for this candidate. Think about it; if FOX had aired this ad nobody would have noticed and the ad would have only reached republicans. Now with the funky FOX reaction everybody instantly knows about the ad and the candidate. Fox have shot themselves in the leg with this one.

[Spastik_Roach]

This might actually work out just fine for this candidate. Think about it; if FOX had aired this ad nobody would have noticed and the ad would have only reached republicans. Now with the funky FOX reaction everybody instantly knows about the ad and the candidate. Fox have shot themselves in the leg with this one.

Interesting point there.

[McReis]

i think thats only the presidential race

Wrong. The law is equal on every democracy. Both sides have the same right to use TV or radio time. Wether they decide to use it or not is up to them.

[scottie300z]

Now I wonder if this person was not gay and republican but put, say, John Kerrys head on a naked torso?

It only proves FOX's right wing conservatist stance more and more, especially seeing as the other stations will air it.

It would only prove it if somebody actually did put john kerrys head on a naked torso and they let it air. Otherwise its not really proof, as it is possible they didnt allow it to air for other reasons.

Also i dont think it said what time the commercial was to air, and that affects alot of things. Fox may air the jerry springer show for example but they wont air it at certain times. And certain subject material that is deamed inappropriate to certain ages is not allowed to air at certain times as well. Think about the kids people, should they be subjected to this type of material?

And this may give the candidate some publicity in other areas b/c of the issue but if his commercial ran he'd get the viewers of the commercial plus any other publicity that would have ran about the content of the commercial b/c w/ content like that there still would have been atleast some. So does he get more publicity this way or the other way? Does this way offset the number of people that would have seen the commercial?

Also i dont remember it saying the exact reason the commercial wasnt aired so i think it should be considered that any reason you may think is actually just guesswork. But that doesnt mean it shouldnt be considered im just saying consider all reasons, pros and cons.

[Matt]

It would only prove it if somebody actually did put john kerrys head on a naked torso and they let it air. Otherwise its not really proof, as it is possible they didnt allow it to air for other reasons.

Also i dont think it said what time the commercial was to air, and that affects alot of things. Fox may air the jerry springer show for example but they wont air it at certain times. And certain subject material that is deamed inappropriate to certain ages is not allowed to air at certain times as well. Think about the kids people, should they be subjected to this type of material?

And this may give the candidate some publicity in other areas b/c of the issue but if his commercial ran he'd get the viewers of the commercial plus any other publicity that would have ran about the content of the commercial b/c w/ content like that there still would have been atleast some. So does he get more publicity this way or the other way? Does this way offset the number of people that would have seen the commercial?

Also i dont remember it saying the exact reason the commercial wasnt aired so i think it should be considered that any reason you may think is actually just guesswork. But that doesnt mean it shouldnt be considered im just saying consider all reasons, pros and cons.

Fox shows Jerry Springer at 9am here. I don't think they're worried about the kids.

[SIMPLETON]

Fox shows Jerry Springer at 9am here. I don't think they're worried about the kids.

MOst kids are in school at that time. And the ones that arent would watch exaclty that type of show.

[my porsche]

the BEST reason why advertising for political posts should NOT be left to the vagaries of commercial decision makers with their OWN agendas.

Are you telling us that in the US the ONLY way to get air time for a political candidate is to buy it ? Is their no guaranteed air-time for candidates to put their case ? Whata bout within channel programming, are political shows required to give equal comment and air time to all candidates ?

i dont fully understand what uyou mean


in a capatalist society, anyone can do anything they want within the law to better benefit their interests.

[ZemoButts]

MOst kids are in school at that time. And the ones that arent would watch exaclty that type of show.

i live in canda and the Jerry Springer show comes on at 3:00pm right around when school ends

[scottie300z]

well that is canada...ya'll are a bit weird. j/k

But im also sure the fcc doesnt really have any push in canada. so there would be a different set of rules. But i know that here in tx, it comes on at 1pm to 2pm then again at like 11pm. so nobody of school age will really see it.

I think it could also be reasoned that maybe the station didnt want to risk any fcc offense. The fcc has been cutting down on what they consider "lewd" and it only takes 1 complaint from a viewer for them to investigate something. So maybe fox didnt want to risk it. That is a possibility that should be considered. There are reasons why they should have done what they did and reasons why they shouldnt have.

[h00t_h00t]

If a similar broadcast was made in Britain (i.e. Blair's head superimpossed onto a naked body) it would have ended in a lawyer fight, I think it comes under slander or something similar.

[Bob]

MOst kids are in school at that time. And the ones that arent would watch exaclty that type of show.

Most kids are in school that time. And the Ones who aren't will be on that show later in their lives, so its ok anyway.

[Bob]

It's not censorship, censorship comes from the government. In my opinion, it would be a violation of freedom of press if the government said they did have to run the ad. Remember, freedom means not only the freedom to show what you want, but the freedom not to show what you don't want. Whether FOX is controlled by the republicans anyway is another matter...

As far as the FCC goes that IS censorship. I think its one of the major things thats wrong with this country. It DOESN'T protect the kids, at least not the 90% with internet access, and what they do and do not censor is ridiculous.

For instance, you can say 'nigger' (imo one of the most vulgar and derogatory words in our language) as many times as you want, but you can't say shit (usually, except for south park, which says it 146 times in one episode.) Its crazy, and its directly against freedom of speech and freedom of press.

[2ndclasscitizen]

It's not censorship, censorship comes from the government

ah no.

Isn't George W. disrespectful to the office of the president/