CBS Radio affiliates ORDERED to carry Clinton book promo

Hey, Drudge just posted this on his site... so I haven't seen it verified anywhere else yet:
www.drudgereport.com...

If this article is correct, the top dogs at CBS have ordered their affiliates to carry a program that will promote Clinton's new book, 'My Life'....

Now, beyond the fact that this amounts to free advertisement for Clinton... I think it dovetails with CBS' latest drive to promote pro-Democratic material under the guise of news. For instance, a few months ago we had Richard Clarke on 60 Minutes in a segment that refused to acknowledge that 60 Minutes and his publisher were both owned by Viacom.

So... I've gotta ask... how can the executives at CBS news be so overtly pro-democratic without getting called out for it?

For the same reason that Disney dumped Michael Moore. Everyone is becoming extremely political and its definitely a conflict of interest.

[edit on 14-6-2004 by gmcnulty]

um, If you own an affiliate and the network tells you that you have to air an ad for free.... I think you'd be alittle miffed. Like the one exec said, he already feels "Dirty"

As for the F 9-11 thing, a movie studio can decide not to put a movie it produced in theatres... especially if it thinks the product is junk (and, sorry, Moore hasn't created what could be called a 'documentary'). A lot of movies go straight to video or are scrapped. In this case Disney sold the rights to F 9-11 so it can hardly be said that it was hidden from the public.

[edit on 14-6-2004 by gmcnulty]

uh, yeah, dude...

I don't see how Clinton selling a book equates to a public service announcement.

Yeah, either:

1.The effort to sell Clinton's book is taking advantage of laws designed to promote public service programs or
2. CBS is just commnded its affiliates to run a free ad (in which case 'must carry' is a command and not the phrase GMCNULTY is talking about)

www.museum.tv...


ekb.dbstalk.com...


[edit on 14-6-2004 by onlyinmydreams]

[edit on 14-6-2004 by gmcnulty]

Well...

Why don't you explain what I don't understand? I took the time to see what a broadcasting museum says about "must carry" orders... and what i found didn't cover anything related to selling products.

So... I may be ignorant or stubborn... but if you're going to call me that you'd better provide some sort of reason for doing so. It's not enough to call someone names, tell them to look something up for themselves, and then call them more names when they do so.

I also think that an actual broadcaster might know more than you or I do, combined, on this subject:
"It's going to be like one big commercial for the book! Why didn't Mr. Clinton's publisher just buy an hour," one angry executive for a CBS news station said late Monday. "This is not news, this is marketing. I already feel dirty!"


Now... PLEASE explain why I'm ignorant or I'll just assume that you're one of the partisan kneejerks who say something like "this isn't so... look away" when something they don't like appears in public.

[edit on 14-6-2004 by gmcnulty]

[edit on 14-6-2004 by gmcnulty]

[edit on 14-6-2004 by gmcnulty]

Originally posted by gmcnulty
You have tooooooooo active an imagination for me friend............you just made my time out list

Have a nice life.

Well, I don't, and I still was able to pick it up. You need to take a time out or something.

Here's the correct protocol in challenging a statement.

"I think you may be mistaken...EVIDENCE INSERTED HERE...or PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE."

Neither of which you did. And, deleting the contents of your posts only substantiates that you acted like an arse-hole in this thread.

A little bit of diplomacy goes a long way.

[edit on 6-14-2004 by Valhall]

Think as you may..............my hard earned points are more important then your unsolicited opinions.

must carry is an old requirement for cable networks to carry local non-cable affiliates. It was eventually deemed unconstitutional as it originally stood, and has been modified to a fairly restricted practice now.

Long story short, I don't believe that the statement about Clinton's book could be correct using the "must carry" phrase. There may be some other phrase that will turn out to correctly describe what OIMD may have found. And maybe not.

But typing for 30 seconds what I just stated would have been a far more appropriate response than acting like a cocky neanderthal.

p.s. I confirm the legitimacy of your screencaps.

[edit on 6-14-2004 by Valhall]

Ah, thank you for the explanation Valhall. That cheeky Matt Drudge!

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (docket no. 95-992)
Argued: October 7, 1996
Decided: March 31, 1997
Issue: Can the federal government require cable operators to carry a certain number of commercial and non-commercial broadcast stations without violating the First Amendment?

Summary: This case is a follow up from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Turner v. FCC, 1994, in which the court decided that the "must carry" provisions for cable TV operators should be given less than strict scrutiny, since the restrictions are content neutral.

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., a cable provider, argues that the "must carry" provision is content-based discrimination because it favors broadcast TV over cable.

Decision: The high court concludes that the "must carry" provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 are consistent with the First Amendment. The government's interests which are met with the "must carry" provisions do not substantially burden speech, said the court.

fact.trib.com...

What the hell are you talking about?

WHO are you talking to?

Do you even know where you're at and what's going on?

And, by the way, BUCKWHEAT...take your 7500 argumentative points and shove 'em up you fat-side....if you had at least one eye in that rock setting on your shoulders you would see that this whole damned board is MADE UP OF UNSOLICITED OPINIONS...

the only thing I've noticed this board not tolerating is UNSOLICITED ATTACKS.

get a clue, cheese-whiz.

I suppose that this report would confirm or make CBS=Clinton Broadcasting System?

But hey, this is no big deal, per se'.....Associated Press, through the HoustonChronicle.com, has plced an a 'call' for campaign donations for the Democrats:
Help the Democrats: Bid on a Warhol, a Rothko or a Lichtenstein





seekerof

Well at least you had a link for that one, friend...................and changes the subject too.............Wow, a little misdirection..............cool.