MTV Turns down Anti-War ad: Censorship?

[The Ace of Swords]

Another company, MTV has turned town an anti-war ad, (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/03/14/mtv_ad_ban/index.html) saying they don't allow advocacy ads.

Apparently on MTV, you can Rock the Vote, so long as you don't really Rock the Boat.

Would the MTV patrons really be upset by this ad more than all the other advocacy ads they air, or is this another example of craven corporations attempting to curry favor with the administration by squelching opinions?

[bordelond]

How is MTV refusing an advocacy groups money squelching opinions? MTV's airtime is theirs to sell -- they can refuse service to anyone for no reason, just like McDonalds.

The anti-war group has many, many other avenues in which they can make their opinions heard. They have no specific right to MTV's air time.

I must say, though, that I am amazed that MTV turned them down. That network really has changed a lot over the last decade or so.

[The Ace of Swords]

Good point:

Why, exactly, do you think MTV has this policy?

[Neurotik]

Why do you think it has the policy? To keep angry calls and negative responses to things seen on its network to a minimum.

[Mojo]

So that they don't have to show offending ads (like anti-abortion ads with pictures of fetuses) to their viewers and possibly lose viewership.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Just out of curiosity (and this may be a slight hijack but I think it is rlevant):

If MTV did sell airtime to the anti-war crowd is MTV then obligated to offer space to 'pro-war' side (not a good term...other side of the coin from the anti-war side)? Certainly not for free but if MTV sold space to one side in an issue can they get caught out for refusing airtime to the flip side of the same issue?

[Kalhoun]

Whack, I think that only applies to free air-time. If people are paying, they can have whoever they want as advertisers. It doesn't make much sense to me, but the opinions of the suits may have a lot to do with it.

[Ike Witt]

Originally posted by Neurotik
To keep angry calls and negative responses to things seen on its network to a minimum.

I really doubt that the network that brought the world Bevis and Butthead and Jackass is overly concerned with getting some angry letters and phone calls because of a commercial.

[Neurotik]

Of course, since Beavis and Butthead also brought in lots of viewers it doesn't really compare with a commercial that will not provide a constant advertising base.

[D_Odds]

Some reasons:
1) Because Viacom (MTV's owner, which I believe has turned down such ads elsewhere) doesn't want to offend a significant portion of its viewers, including US military personnel domestic and abroad.
2) Because Viacom does not want to annoy (or wants to pander) to the current party in power.
3) Because Viacom's board are a bunch of hawks themselves who decided that the anti-war ads cannot be shown on the network they run.
4) Because 'Rocking the Vote', as long as it doesn't endorse any party, in non-controversial, as opposed to any stance on war (and many people who would watch the add will link it to Viacom/MTV's 'official' stance, no matter any disclaimers)

I'd just like to add that Viacom is under no obligation whatsoever to broadcast anyone's opinion ads. Whether choosing not to air an opinion is squelching that opinion is left to the individual.

[The Ace of Swords]

Ok, two points, Neurotik

Fuck Beavis & Butthead: What about Jackass?

MTV's reason for being is rebellious counter-culture. Who, exactly, would be offended by this ad, that wouldn't have been already offended by, I dunno, the sex and violence in ready display after 11 pm?

If the "political advocacy" test is actually all about "offensiveness," why don't they make a policy against offensive ads, using the "reasonable man" test? I'm sure we could allow political opinions and still not leave ourselves open to fetus-murdering pictures

Thirdly, MTV and viacom make their money from advertising. Not from viewers. If advertisers desire a demographic, great. If they don't care about the demographic, better still.

How is a blanket anti-political advocacy policy, which lessens their revenue stream for no tangible gain, in Viacom's best interest?

[The Ace of Swords]

And further, why can't the brilliant programmers at Viacom simply put the 'offensive' ads on after 11pm?

[Tristan]

Wow. Once they're forced to accept ads that they don't want to air, I can't wait to buy up a bunch of good slots and fill them with "Killy Whitey" and "Run the Darkies out of your Town" ads.

I'm sure those will go over well.

Someone else already said it.... regardless of whether or not the ad is offensive, or controversial, if the slot is a paid ad they are well within their reason to reject it, and they don't have to give any reason at all.

And that's the way it should be.

It's what keeps Vivid Video and Flynt Productions from buying up ad space during the Sunday morning church shows. It's the EXACT same idea.

[The Ace of Swords]

Tristan, that doesn't wash.

Would MTV viewers be hideously upset by an ad featuring interviews with anti-war students and young people?

Hell, it's the same demographic group.

We have a long history of allowing both sides to speak their minds on contentious political debates, as long as they can do it in a civil manner; I think MTV should have allowed the ad as it is completely inoffensive. If their rationale isn't how terrible offensive this ad is, they shouldn't be lying and concealing their rationale.

Does it make sense that they would turn down money from advertisers their viewers would probably totally enjoy?

[Tristan]

The problem there is the phrase "Both sides to speak their minds".

If MTV is going to do something like that, you'd have to allow pro-war commercials, and according to you, the demographic would be up in arms.

And I'm sure MTV-Viacom probably turns down money all the time. This would be no different then MTV-Viacom turning down a commercial ad for a product they don't want to be associated with, or a commercial that they feel wouldn't reach their target demographic.


Lets put it another way: If I air a show, I can't sue the nation or cable companies for not airing me. It's up to me to fix that.

If anti-war groups want to air paid advertisements, it's up to them to either a- make a commercial that MTV-Viacom will accept, or b- find another outlet that will take them.

[Skip]

MTV's reason for being is rebellious counter-culture.
Uh, no. MTV's reason for being is to make money.

[jshore]

Originally posted by bordelond
How is MTV refusing an advocacy groups money squelching opinions? MTV's airtime is theirs to sell -- they can refuse service to anyone for no reason, just like McDonalds.

Actually, there are rules on public accomodation. McDonalds cannot refuse service to someone on the basis of race, for example.

[One can argue that "the airwaves" are even more open to such public accomodation because they are a public good. On the other hand, I guess MTV is a cable network and thus doesn't use "the airwaves".]

[Bricker]

Ace of Swords, in your view, MTV should accept the ad.

But you're not in charge of MTV.

MTV's view is that they should not. And it's their view which carries the day, isn't it?

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

Originally posted by jshore
Actually, there are rules on public accomodation. McDonalds cannot refuse service to someone on the basis of race, for example.Since MTV is not refusing the ad on the basis of the admaker's race (or the admaker's membership in any other "protected class" as defined in federal and/or state civil rights laws), your comment is wholly inapplicable to the OP.

[The Ace of Swords]

Originally posted by Bricker
Ace of Swords, in your view, MTV should accept the ad.

But you're not in charge of MTV.

MTV's view is that they should not. And it's their view which carries the day, isn't it? Wow, thanks for the blast, Captain Obvious.

If you're worried about only posting views that make a difference, can I assume this will be your last non-contribution to this thread?

[The Ace of Swords]

Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow
Since MTV is not refusing the ad on the basis of the admaker's race (or the admaker's membership in any other "protected class" as defined in federal and/or state civil rights laws), your comment is wholly inapplicable to the OP. Dewey, you imply that it is MTV's right to turn town anybody for any reason other than a protected class. What about:

"It's our right to turn down political advocacy ads we don't agree with."

Is it, indeed their right, to harness the public's airways to restrict inoffensive commercial speech? Suppose they would never allow this group to produce any ad. Never. They had a policy naming the group as verboten.

Still not a problem?

[Tristan]

Happens all the time.

Do you think groups like our St0rmfr0nt friends would be able to get a national ad, no matter how inocuous?


And yes, it is their right and freedom to turn down advocacy groups they don't agree with. That is as it should be.

Why do you think this is so wrong?

[censored]

I'm okay with rejecting an anti-war ad if they also reject pro-war ads.
Fairness and all that.

[Weird_AL_Einstein]

Originally posted by The Ace of Swords
Who, exactly, would be offended by this ad, that wouldn't have been already offended by, I dunno, the sex and violence in ready display after 11 pm?

Me. MTV "sex and violence" make me yawn. But I can see myself being offended by an anti-war ad.

Originally posted by The Ace of Swords
Is it, indeed their right, to harness the public's airways to restrict inoffensive commercial speech?

What public airways? As has already been pointed out, they are a cable channel.

[The Ace of Swords]

Originally posted by Tristan
Happens all the time.

Do you think groups like our St0rmfr0nt friends would be able to get a national ad, no matter how inocuous?


And yes, it is their right and freedom to turn down advocacy groups they don't agree with. That is as it should be.

Why do you think this is so wrong? Ok, further suppose that they generate the list of "political groups we don't like" based on a list supplied by the government, NOT as a result of what their own audience might find offensive (like Stormfront).

How is that not government-based censorship?

[Super Gnat]

Originally posted by The Ace of Swords
Ok, further suppose that they generate the list of "political groups we don't like" based on a list supplied by the government, NOT as a result of what their own audience might find offensive (like Stormfront).

How is that not government-based censorship?

Since they haven't done that, and no such list in fact exists, I believe we have a strawman argument here.

[Bryan Ekers]

I'm personally offended by the casual and inaccurate use of the word "censorship" in this thread, but that's because I'm intolerant of dumb-assedness.

MTV is a corporation, not a government entity, and they can accept or not accept advertising contracts as they choose.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by The Ace of Swords
Ok, further suppose that they generate the list of "political groups we don't like" based on a list supplied by the government, NOT as a result of what their own audience might find offensive (like Stormfront).

How is that not government-based censorship? [/B]

Your reaching. Even if the government provided such a list, as long as MTVs adherence to it is voluntary, it isn't censorship.

Bottom line. If MTV/Viacom wants to continue their business model of commoditizing faux-rebellious imagery and societal change, so long as topics are no more edgy than fashion, music, or safe topics like peer pressure and youth viloence, than it is within their right to do so. If you are unhappy with their political views, you are certainly able to vote with your dollar when you change the channel.

Personally, I do not need a 30 second ad to distill an issue for me. I am perfectly capable of reading or watching various in-depth sources and deciding on my own.

[Duke]

I think MTV turned the ad down because of its demographic, not in spite of it. After all, Empty-V is supposed to be your youth-oriented, Spring Break Party Network, no? And from this article (http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20030316/1009072.asp), here's a taste of how the Spring Break Party Youth feel about the Iraq situation: "I think the war and stuff affects our generation a lot less than our parents," said Nikki Saviano, a 19-year-old University of Florida freshman who was in Panama City. "We're in school and so insulated. We don't even hear that much. Like, our lives go on. We're still looking to party." OK, OK, I know that a lot of college students have strong and principled political views. I work at a university, I know it's true. But since when has MTV been about "strong and principled" anything? Their scheme has always been to portray the occasional half an hour of serious discussion as their "social consciousness" balance to filling up the rest of the schedule with teenybopper videos, so-called "reality" shows, and cartoon sex 'n' violence.

MTV has always pandered to the crowd that couldn't point out Iraq on a map. Why should they change now?

[buttonjockey308]

I'll put this out there, since no one else has...

MTV, like the artists they play, are here to entertain us, period. Their opinions as artists, and as broadcasters are irrelevant.

Still, MTV has been informative about many things in the past, yet those things have been their polished renditions of the truth, like documentaries, or things tame enough not to offend both their target demographic AND their leadership/ownership (i.e. Rock the Vote)

MTV is in the business to entertain, and make money. If they air a pro-war ad, or an anti-war ad, is strictly their business, moreover, it is preposterous to suggest that they have an obligation to run things that could potentially damage them, and their business.

It's no different than FOX denouncing Jerry Springer and his content before each show, i.e "the views expressed here do not refelect those of, blah, blah, blah." Same deal with an anti war ad, only there can be no disclaimer to it.

I have no doubt that many MTV personnel choose to be anti-war, (hell, who isn't anti-war?) but it cannot reflect in their programming, it's just that damn simple.

[The Ace of Swords]

Originally posted by Super Gnat
Since they haven't done that, and no such list in fact exists, I believe we have a strawman argument here. No, a strawman argument is when you restate somone ELSE's argument and beat on it.

What I posted was a hypothetical. See where it says "suppose?"

Since it's two-for-one definitions today: hand-waving is when you forsake answering the question to bluster on about minutae.

[Debaser]

Huh? Does anybody watch MTV? They have anti-war ad's all the time on that channel recently. It has been annoying me for several weeks at least.

[The Ace of Swords]

Originally posted by msmith537
Your reaching. Even if the government provided such a list, as long as MTVs adherence to it is voluntary, it isn't censorship.What I'm reaching for, is a convergence of our idea of "fairness" and the legal constraints which MTV/VIACOM operate under, which to my eyes, clash greatly.

You say "as long as it is voluntary," but that elides entirely the possible conflicts of interest. Suppose, furhter that they were paid or compensated or given access or simply not harassed by the government? That would be "voluntary" choosing to suppress certain political views, but it would be a corrupt choice, having nothing to do with MTV/VIACOM's monied self-interest (or the ad's innate offensiveness) except their self-interest in not being bullied by the government.

The media is clearly yoked to the government -- see the thread on how the questions at press conferences are restricted and vetted; therefore it is no leap at all to suppose that there are governmental pressures to limit unwanted voices.

Again, would this be censorship and is it fair?

Duke: One person's quote proves what, exactly? The two demographics overlap to such an extent (young, white, monied for starters) that the onus is on MTV to show why they're not shooting themselves in the foot.

One might consider if that's why they produced the show discussing these issues -- to not alienate that section of their demographic...


buttonjockey308: Um, we're arguing why MTV would do something apparently NOT in their self-interest.

And I missed the logic: why can't they "appear to be anti-war," since it's their business to air whichever ads they want?

Debaser: I sure don't watch 'em; Good news. Was it a long-term policy decision or a short-term political one?

[Bricker]

Originally posted by The Ace of Swords
Wow, thanks for the blast, Captain Obvious.

If you're worried about only posting views that make a difference, can I assume this will be your last non-contribution to this thread?

It probably should be, since I realize the chance of my getting you to see the rror of your ways is nearly zero.

But I remain optimistic.

With no evidence at all, you suggest that MTV is somehow acting at the behest of the government in suppressing a particular form of political speech. Even if they are not, you seem to suggest that it's wrong for them to suppress a certain kind of political speech. It's unclear to me whether your ire would be as sharp were they prohibiting pro-war ads.

But what my "Captain Obvious" comment was intended to highlight is that the unspoken assumption in either view is that you have just as much right as they do to decide what political views should air on MTV. While it's true you have just as much right as they to hold political opinions, and in general to publicize them, you DON'T have as much right as they to publish those views on MTV.

You seem to be unwilling to accept that.

[whatsallthisabout]

The same reason they would turn down ads for "NAMBLA," the North American Man Boy Love Association. Because they feel it is a prudent business decision. No other reason.