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?
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?
I’m okay with rejecting an anti-war ad if they also reject pro-war ads.
Fairness and all that.
Me. MTV “sex and violence” make me yawn. But I can see myself being offended by an anti-war ad.
What public airways? As has already been pointed out, they are a cable channel.
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.
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.
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.
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, here’s a taste of how the Spring Break Party Youth feel about the Iraq situation:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.