Why do channels run ads that have been proven to be deceptive?

[Captain Angry]

Yeah, I know the answer. But still.

Channel 9 in Denver played the "Obama's blocking offshore drilling and is the reason that gas is expensive" ad.

Channel 9 has a segment on their news channel where they debunk lies in political ads.

Channel 9 already showed, on their own channel, that this ad was full of crap.

So, why would they still allow it on their airspace?

ACK!

[Speck Tater]

1. Because they are paid to run them. Money IS God to them. NT

[Cant trust em]

2. My question is why the FCC allows that kind of stuff

Should it be legal to promote lies?

[Captain Angry]

3. If I had a company that falsely advertised, the FTC would enact sanctions.

Those sanctions actually include buying ads in the same location as the false ad, and explaining that the former ad was not correct.

I would love to see McCain have to spend his limited budget to play retraction ads.

[Arctic Dave]

4. 90% of commercials would have to taken off the air.

As long as I am generalizing, a TV is not worth the plastic it is made out of.

[MrSlayer]

5. Money talks.

It's business.

[BlooInBloo]

6. Because they're paid to. Duh.

[KharmaTrain]

7. If It's A Political Ad, They Have To...

Law regarding political advertising are a hot potato for many stations. Yep, they're damn good and easy money, but they're also a pain in the ass. A station cannot edit the content of an ad and if they take ads from any/all candidates, they cannot reject the content no matter how insulting, fact-free or even slanderous. Sounds like you saw yet another 527 ad. Be prepared, there are a lot more on the way.

[Captain Angry]

8. This was a "I'm John McCain, and I approve this message" ad.

My point is that the station itself determined the ad to be false and gave examples. I can't believe that the channel can't refuse to run it after that.

[KharmaTrain]

11. If It's Political, No They Can't Reject It On Content

FCC laws, mandated by congress, protect the person who purchases political advertising time from much, if any, editorial censorship. For example, stations had to accept anti-abortion group ads showing a dead fetus even though they objected as the candidate/527s rights are protected by that damned First Ammendment.

I understand your point...and the only way a station can avoid the situation is to not accept any political advertising at all, but for most major market TV stations, these commercials are manna from heaven. It's that disclaimer at the end that indemifies the station...and if Gramps is gonna lie, so be it...people can believe him or their lying eyes.

Cheers...

[Captain Angry]

12. Works for me, thanks for the explanation.

McCain is desperately trying to define Obama, and he'll never get called out for lying by the major media.

I'd love to see an Obama ad that explains the situation, and instead of playing defense, goes on offense with McCain's own quotes from last year about never playing politics with the servicemen.

[KharmaTrain]

17. Never Peak Too Soon

That's kinda a concern I have right now...and I'm sure some here will laugh. But we've still got the big stretch to come...and, ignoring the propaganda from a self-serving corporate media, Senator Obama sits in a good position. We still haven't seen both the bump (small) that Senator Obama's trip should bring as well as the bigger fall-out of Gramps campaign cratering. There haven't really been any polls since Gramps all but lost his foreign policy and his pathetic photo ops and whining last week (and, yes, many saw him as a whiner)

I give people a bit of credit...they know bullshit when it's piled high and deep in front of them...and the pile Gramps and his corrupt party is an elephant-sized pile. He dug himself into a whole...and the old saying is that when someone's that low, don't stoop down to help them.

The great thing is that Senator Obama doesn't need to lie or name-call...truth and reality trumps 30 seconds worth of lies...along with Gramps record of being on 17 sides of virtually every issue.

Obama has done an excellent job in explaining his positinos on things...now it's up to the corporate media as to if they present that information or try to spin in...and there, we have little control.

Cheers...

[grantcart]

13. Actually wasn't there a Supreme Court decision that lays out exactly what you

are saying. There are some exceptions and I am not sure that the dead fetus would meet the current standards but they can't generally reject an ad even if they know its false.

[Starry Messenger]

9. I'm lucky to never see those

I live in the Bay Area. The first time I ever saw a Republican ad was in 2004 in Beaverton, Oregon of all places. They must run them somewhere in California though, there are a lot of Red counties.

MPK

[SmileyRose]

10. Well they run penis enlargement ads too.

and that ad is full of crap too so I doubt it has anything to do with Obama.

[grantcart]

14. they are?

I was hoping that the 7th cycle of treatment would help.


You seem to be well informed about this stuff. How did all these guys who know about 'my problem' get my email address?

[SmileyRose]

16. LOL - I like the one with "Bob"

That idiot grin of his cracks me up. My husband said if the old farts who order that stuff would lose 10 pounds "it" would look a full inch bigger anyway.

I have not seen "Bob" for quite some time. I think the FDA put the smackdown on that product and made them quit selling it.

[27inCali]

15. Thats actually really helpful

you see, people see the add debunked and they think -"that dishonest fuck" and then promptly forget about it.

but every time the add comes back on, they are reminded.

repeat the process a few times until people can't fucking stand it.

haha.

ads can backfire.