cannabisnews.com: MoveOn Accuses CBS of Bias MoveOn Accuses CBS of Bias Posted by CN Staff on January 23, 2004 at 13:24:17 PT By Sandy Brown Source: Ad Week New York -- Liberal political advocacy group MoveOn.org has charged CBS Television and parent Viacom with political favoritism after the network agreed to run a White House anti-drug ad during the Super Bowl but has rejected the group's 30-second spot."It seems to us that CBS simply defers to those it fears or from whom it wants favors—in this case, the Bush White House," said Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org's campaign director, in a statement. "This is the same CBS that recently backed down when the Republican National Committee made a stink about its miniseries on former President Reagan and his family." CBS denied the MoveOn.org Voter Fund a slot in the Super Bowl earlier this month when it would not allow the winning spot from it's recent "Bush in 30 Seconds" TV ad contest to air during the game. The spot, "Child's Play," focused on the federal deficit it claims the Bush administration has created [Adweek Online Jan. 16]. An ad from People for Ethical Treatment of Animals also was rejected by CBS.CBS said it has a policy not to run advocacy ads, and considers MoveOn.org's charge a tactic to gain free publicity. "Our policy is long-standing and clear," said a CBS representative. "We do not run contentious messages that are clearly devisive. I'd like to know who's for drug abuse? There are advocacy groups that are coming up with fairly new and innovative ways to do the same thing [and] get themselves free publicity."Tom Riley, a White House Office of National Drug Control Policy representative, called MoveOn.org's charge of political favoritism "absurd.""CBS has a stated and long-standing policy about accepting ads on contentious issues," Riley said. "As far as our anti-drug ads are concerned, who, exactly, would the 'other side' be? People who want teens to do drugs? Or people who don't want parents to talk to their teens about drugs. Who is that constituency? Or more specifically, who is willing to be identified in public as that constituency?"Riley continued, "It is understandable, if pathetic, that pro-drug organizations would oppose these messages. In the long run, their goals depend on more people using drugs. But it is particularly sad to see other organizations attempt to block these public health messages merely to further their own political agenda." Information on NORML's e-mail campaign to CBS is available online at: http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=4749626&type=ML Newshawk: Paul Armentano -- http://www.norml.org/Source: Ad WeekAuthor: Sandy Brown Published: January 22, 2004Copyright: 2004 Adweek Contact: info adweek.com Website: http://www.adweek.com/ Related Articles & Web Site:MoveOn.orghttp://www.moveon.org/Ad Rejections by CBS Raise Policy Questionshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18179.shtmlStudy Faults White House Anti-Drug Adshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18172.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #7 posted by yippierevolutionary on January 24, 2004 at 08:26:57 PT There are *two* Other Sides Here The first one is the one that Mayan identified. It is possible that this side could be identified in the press because it would say marijuana is evil but these ads don't work: The second one is where I stand. These ads dont work, and cannabis is holy. I encourage cannabis use by all people, especially teenagers. For one the more cannabis toked the less beer chugged. Secondly I think Cannabis can keep people out of a lot of trouble, and off the consumerist path. Beer drinking non-toking friends I had in High School would spend friday nights driving around smashing mail boxes for kicks, or getting into fights. About the consumerist thing, there are two acceptable highs in this society. One is the infatuation of the early days of a relationship. Almost every movie is about this or has this storyline in it. The second acceptable high is from buying things. A girl at my college goes shopping in between classes to releave stress!The enlightened cannabist enjoys being, rather than thinking "If only I had that BMW then I would be happy" and after aquiring that thinking "If only I had a ferrari then I would be happy" until his wife leaves him and he spends years with booze and whores and then finds Jesus. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by mayan on January 23, 2004 at 18:19:20 PT The "Other Side" "CBS has a stated and long-standing policy about accepting ads on contentious issues," Riley said. "As far as our anti-drug ads are concerned, who, exactly, would the 'other side' be? People who want teens to do drugs? Or people who don't want parents to talk to their teens about drugs. Who is that constituency? Or more specifically, who is willing to be identified in public as that constituency?"The "other side" would be those who don't want their tax dollars wasted on an ad campaign that has been thoroughly proven to be counterproductive! I would be very willing to be identified in public as that constituency. Riley is a lying idiot. Jesse Ventura proved that!On an unrelated note...Police station goes to pot: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1030832.htmThe way out is the way in...9/11 Widow Suing Bush to Speak in Kansas City! http://www.septembereleventh.org/kc/index.php9/11 Prior Knowledge/Government Involvement Archive: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/archiveprior_knowledge [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by JustGetnBy on January 23, 2004 at 17:25:29 PT SHAME ON YOU Mr. RILEY Your response to this is so juvenile and illogical that I won't even dignify it with a rebuttal. If this is the best you can do, not only are your parents entitled to a rebate for your college education, you are a perfect example of the Peter Principle. Disgusted & Sad [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by i420 on January 23, 2004 at 14:40:52 PT What a waste of taxpayers money. I know exactly where CBS can stick the super bowl I could care less to watch a bunch of men running around in tights chasing each other for a ball. As for their hypocritical way of accepting ads you all are just a bunch of communist pigs so bend over for the pigskin hope ya choke on it. As for Tom Riley I can't say what i want to out of respect for Fom but I will say you don't amount to a speck of you know what on my you know what. Kids all over America are laughing in your face while smoking a big fattie whatchin the super bowl. GET A REAL JOB AND GET OFF OUR TAXPAYERS HARDEARNED MONEY WE HAVE A DEFICIT TO PAY. http://www.nylonorgy.com/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by jose melendez on January 23, 2004 at 14:16:28 PT disingenuous liar " . . . more specifically, who is willing to be identified in public as that constituency?"That's a scarcely veiled threat there, Riley. Whatcha gonna do, Tom? Arrest us all? Or just the ones brave enough to publicly expose your fraud?HJere's audio of your boss lying:http://dvdeland.com/mp3/waltersDisingenuousFraud.movAnd here is YOU lying, for those journalism lurkers out there to see and hear:http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-2365.html listen up [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Virgil on January 23, 2004 at 13:58:25 PT Now everything is upside down Tom Riley, a White House Office of National Drug Control Policy representative, called MoveOn.org's charge of political favoritism "absurd.""CBS has a stated and long-standing policy about accepting ads on contentious issues," Riley said.Hold everything. Conglomerate media has this message from officialdom telling you what to think. This statement is really upside down of the media carrying the programming from officialdom. Now officialdom is reporting on media policy. It is almost if media and government are married. Riley misses the point and the reaction that will come from the ads. People are going to want to know how much these ads cost and what the hell is the government doing spending this kind of money on crappy ads.I wonder if any of them will mention marijuana with the meth problem and the x popularity and the coke and heroin addicts. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by E_Johnson on January 23, 2004 at 13:55:41 PT No nagging zone The Superbowl needs to be declared an offical No Nagging Zone. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment