Another company, MTV has turned town an anti-war ad, 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?
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.
Good point:
Why, exactly, do you think MTV has this policy?
Why do you think it has the policy? To keep angry calls and negative responses to things seen on its network to a minimum.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Some reasons:
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.
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?
And further, why can’t the brilliant programmers at Viacom simply put the ‘offensive’ ads on after 11pm?
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.
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?
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.
*MTV’s reason for being is rebellious counter-culture. *
Uh, no. MTV’s reason for being is to make money.
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”.]
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?
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.
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?