A Red Sox player, on Good Morning America, used this opportunity to grab the spotlight to make an unsolicited political endorsement. Why is this legal? Yes, there is freedom of speech, but there are also regulations on using the media and improper ways of influencing an election. (Why else must politicians say they approve of this ad, etc.) Why wasn’t his appeal bleeped?
I am seeking factual answers here, not rhetoric and debate.
Politicians have to say “I approve of this ad” in order to be able to run the ad at a reduced rate. There aren’t any restrictions against Schilling endorsing Bush when he’s a guest on GMA, any more than there would be if he said “I like pancakes”.
What was improper about expressing one’s political opinion? How could such expressions be outlawed? The network could censor it if they choose, but they are under no legal requirement to do so.
It’s called a “plug”, specifically a “free plug”. And, it’s too funny how networks worry so much about these things leaking over the air in candid statements.
“Gee, kids, if you want to be like me, get your parents to eat my cereal, Sluggies!”
He’s there to talk baseball, not politics… :wally And, it sounds like he’s speaking on behalf of ALL the Boston Red Sox when he makes such a statement.
I really wonder: Would you still say this if he had used such an opportunity to endorse, oh I don’t know, Kerry? - Jinx
Anybody who is being interviewed by a journalist has the Free Speech right to sound off on any subject under the sun. It’s perfectly legal; it’s written into the Constitution. As long as someone will give you a soapbox, you have the right to publicly speak out and endorse anything you want, from political candidates to vegetarianism to Buddhism to gay rights.
And the journalist has the right to decide whether or not to include that opinion in his finished piece. In this case, the producers of GMA decided to include it. (And seeing as how he snuck it in right at the tail end, and it wasn’t even a speech as such, it was just, “And make sure you tell everybody to vote, and vote Bush next week”, and then cut to commercial, I’m hardly surprised.) Which is also perfectly legal. One person’s opinion does not constitute an unfair advantage for the product, political candidate, political cause, or religion he’s pushing. When some celebrity on the Today show suddenly veers off from talking about his new movie and starts speaking out against eating meat, the Beef Council doesn’t demand equal time from NBC. It doesn’t work like that.
Only to people who think the Boston Red Sox speak as one voice, and vote as one man.
The networks worry about celebrities using their valuable on-air time to plug commercial products like Wheaties and the Thighmaster because their valuable on-air time is…valuable. They’ve only got maybe two minutes, and ABC isn’t paying the Flavor-Of-The-Minute to plug his orthopedic shoe franchise or to get some extra mileage out of his million-dollar endorsement package for Pepsi. They want him to talk about the World Series, or his latest movie, or whatever it is they’ve hauled him down there for, not about the great buys now to be found down at Carpet World.
And endorsing a political candidate doesn’t “count” as a free plug, because it’s just his personal opinion. He wasn’t being paid by the Republican National Committee to plug Bush–he was just expressing his opinion.
If I may quote you:
As was done many times by carefully selected 9/11 widows on the very same Good Morning America some months ago? 
And has been done by similarly selected parents of Iraq war soldiers many times since?
Hey, I’m not the rabid partisan that you are, but I watch GMA most mornings and I see what’s going on.
I’m not sure how much of a factual answer we can give, other than that it’s legal because there’s no law against it.
Campaign finance laws only deal with ways in which you are allowed to use money to influence an election. There are no laws against using your celebrity to try to do so. You may think this is unfair (I do), but that is a subject for Great Debates.
Other than campaign finance laws, the only other rule which could come into play is the FCC equal time requirement. You could try filing a Section 315 complaint against the network which broadcast the show, demanding that they give equal time (5 seconds?) to other candidates, but I think a brief ballplayer interview would qualify as “spot news”.
I would, because I, unlike many Bush supporters, support and defend the First Amendment for all Americans, not just those who share my agenda. It’s just an endorsement; if you haven’t noticed there is a lot of that going on. Oh, and in case you haven’t noticed until now, I am a rather ardent Kerry supporter, so defending Schilling’s right to endorse Bush is hardly partisan.
On the other hand, celebrities do have the right to give or withhold the granting of interviews, and might just put terms on the granting of same based on their convictions – “If I appear on ‘The Moderately Late Show’ with Joe Moderatelytalentedcomic, I want a chance to talk about [my political views/the greyhound adoption program I support/Veganism/Scientology/my born-again experience].” And the producers either agree to this as a condition of his appearance, decline the interview, or try to renegotiate.
Would you have started this thread in that case?
Okay, then you can take it from this Kerry supporter that what Schilling did was perfectly legal and perfectly ethical and ABC had no legal or ethical responsibility to prevent him from doing it.