CNN refused to run commercials sponsored by Log Cabin Republicans opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment during the Republican convention, claiming that such ads would be “too controversial.”
Yet they are running ads for a website that purports to detail the alleged connections between GWB and the Saudi royal family (didn’t quite catch the URL and Googling doesn’t turn up the specific site). The commercial invokes everything from the Carlyle group to the nationality of the 9-11 hijackers.
Ads accusing the president of the United States of colluding with a foreign power for personal gain are less controversial than ads encouraging people not to outlaw same-sex marriage in the Constitution? Really?
Methinks I smell an anti-gay double standard at CNN…
Did they run the Saudi Connection ads during the RNC? My guess is that it’s the timing, more than the content, that’s giving them the shivering willies.
Um, cite? Not in the “you’re lying” sense, but in the “I don’t get it from the OP” sense.
One you describe as a series of commercials run during the Republican National Convention, which is one of the highest-profile news stories of the year, and the ad time is very expensive. The other is advertising “a website,” which implies that it’s an ad that would run on cnn.com, where ad space is a lot more prevalent and cheaper.
Where did CNN claim that their reasons for not running the RNC ads was because it was “too controversial?” I’d want to hear more details before I go pointing fingers at CNN and calling them “anti-gay.”
The ad I saw was broadcast on CNN television, not on CNN’s website. It was a 30-second spot listing off some of the Bush family’s alleged perfidy with the Saudis and directing those seeking more information to a particular website.
Equipoise, that’s not the specific site in the ad but the content looks to be pretty much the same. The one from the ad was something like bushandsaudis-dot-com but I can’t recall it exactly.
Yeah…Unfortunately, there does seem to be precedence for the networks deciding what sort of ads they will run when. During the Super Bowl, CBS refused to run an anti-Bush ad by MoveOn.org that was fairly benign and also refused to run a PETA ad, citing their controversial / advocacy nature. (The MoveOn.Org ad showed kids doing various menial jobs like sweeping floors and said, “Guess who will be paying for the Bush tax cuts? Your children.” The PETA ad, admittedly more risque, was described thusly:
And, yet, it was noted that they did run an advertisement that essentially advertised the Bush / Republican Medicare drug coverage benefit under the guise of being informational and they ran one of those ads from the White House drug czar that equating drug use with supporting terrorists.
