5. Pravda, U.S.A. - the Age of GOP Propaganda

5.3 The Censor Media

Here are some of the well-known cases of overt censorship by major U.S. media outlets, imposed on ads, coverage or opinions considered unfriendly to (or by) the Bush administration. The fact that this far exceeds any censorship of ads/coverage/opinions considered unfriendly to (or by) Democrats shows that on the issue of censorship the media is biased quite conservative, rather than liberal. (It's no surprise that well-known conservatives themselves either overtly or indirectly long for censorship of facts, opinions or portrayals they don't like). [If you know of more incidents, please send me an email; some additional cases are in Sec. 4.7]

I am not covering censorship that may be hidden and not known to the public because it is impossible to prove and/or quantify in any meaningful way.

A. CENSORSHIP OF VIEWS/PROGRAMS/ADS CONSIDERED UNFRIENDLY TO (or BY) THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

5.3.1 CBS and UPN (both part of Viacom), NBC and ABC - and the United Church of Christ

5.3.2 CBS and MoveOn.Org

5.3.3 NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox News -and USAction

5.3.4 NBC and Ashleigh Banfield

5.3.5 PBS and "Postcards from Buster"

5.3.6 CNN and Log Cabin Republicans

5.3.7 CNN and the Iraq War (Christiane Amanpour)

5.3.8 Chicago Tribune and Boondocks

5.3.9 Clear Channel and the Dixie Chicks

5.3.10 Clear Channel (Various)

5.3.11 Sinclair Broadcasting and "Nightline" Iraq program

5.3.12 New York Times and Other ICM outlets - and the Bush bulge

5.3.13 New York Times and Paul Krugman

5.3.14 Washington Post - and the Iraq war

5.3.15 Sinclair Broadcasting and the DNC

5.3.16 Comcast Cable and anti-war ads by Peace Action Education Fund

5.3.17 CNN, Fox News, and NBC - and the Win Without War coalition

5.3.18 Tribune Media Services and Robert Koehler

5.3.19 CBS and Ronald Reagan miniseries

5.3.20 CBS and coverage of misleading/false report by Bush administration to go to war

5.3.21 Viacom and Compare, Decide, Vote

5.3.22 Fox News and CNN and reporting on Al Qaeda post 9/11

B. CENSORSHIP OF VIEWS/PROGRAMS/ADS CONSIDERED UNFRIENDLY TO (or BY) DEMOCRATS

(i) The Bone Conduction Music Show of Terry Hughes (via Instapundit) was evidently cancelled by WEMU-FM (radio) because of Hughes' stated pro-Iraq war position (also see here)

(ii) Gary Bauer's ad against China (and urging Clinton to not visit China) rejected by CNN [note: I think this is a somewhat doubtful case because Bauer's ad was mostly against China's human rights violations - which Clinton was against as well, but I'm including it anyway]

(iii) CNN's self-admitted, self-censorship of anti-Saddam coverage for years (for ostensibly protecting the life of their journalists in Saddam-controlled Iraq) [note: again, it is quite a stretch to make this an example of anti-Bush bias because CNN had been doing this even in Clinton's time, when Clinton was bombing Saddam - but I'm including it anyway; also see this note from FAIR providing a different perspective]

APPENDIX 1
There are cases where columns were censored by newspapers which were critical of the newspaper's own stated positions. I am not including these in my comparison because these have nothing to do with censorship of voices against Republicans or Democrats. However, such censorship is also unacceptable.

(a) Brian McGrory and the Boston Globe (Instapundit link) 

(b) Harvey Araton and Dave Anderson and the New York Times 

(c) Pacifica Radio Network's censorship of progressive/left-leaning individuals/groups, for reasons that included (but were not limited to) criticism of Pacifica 

5.3.1 CBS and UPN (both part of Viacom), NBC and ABC - and the United Church of Christ

Josh Marshall:

The United Church of Christ (UCC) plans to run a major ad campaign in December to raise public awareness of the denomination. One of the ads is meant, in the words of a UCC press release, to convey the message "that -- like Jesus -- the United Church of Christ seeks to welcome all people, regardless of ability, age, race, economic circumstance or sexual orientation."

You can see the ad here -- it features two burly bouncers turning various people away from a church service. And if you watch it you'll see that the broad message of inclusion over intolerance places a prominent emphasis on acceptance of homosexuals in the life of the church.

Yet, according to a press release out this evening from the UCC, both CBS and NBC have refused to air the ad because the subject matter is "too controversial."

Again, look at the ad because the spot raises the topic in about as innocuous and uncontroversial a way as is imaginable. Homosexuality is never even broached explicitly.
...
According to the UCC press release, CBS explained its decision, in part, as follows ...

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations," reads an explanation from CBS, "and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks."

(I'm unclear on why the CBS statement would speak for CBS and UPN. And at first I wondered whether the dispute was with an affiliate or a station owner who owns both CBS and UPN affiliates. But the press release seems quite specific and clear that the ads have been rejected by both the "CBS and NBC television networks.")

If this is really the case, we seem now to be in a country where political campaigns can be waged with flurries of ads replete with demonstrable falsehoods. And yet clear and tame political speech aimed at a pressing national debate isn't acceptable.

CBS's explanation seems to rest on the preposterous argument that because the ad addresses a major public debate that that makes it "unacceptable".

Or is it just that discussing homosexuality is "unacceptable"?

Late Update: As numerous more media-consolidation-savvy TPM readers have now pointed out to, Viacom owns both CBS and UPN, thus the joint refusal to air the ad.

UPDATE 5/2/05: See this Daily Kos diary:

During the season finale of ABC's schlocky reality show, "Supernanny," James Dobson's Focus on the Family will be running ads promoting its "Focus on Your Child" program, which advises parents on how to implement the parenting principles outlined in his best-seller, "Dare to Discipline." These include spanking with "sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely." Children have to be taught respect for authority at an early age, Dobson preaches, or they'll never develop respect for governmental authority or God.

...

Focus's ad buy is its first in prime time TV. It has ostensibly purchased the ads through its 501 c-3, the self-help component of its organization, so it can claim legally that the ads are not political. But they are, and it's absurd to say they're not. On his radio show, Dobson shamelessly begs for money for his 501 c-4, Focus on the Family Action, his organization's political arm. FOF Action is the entity which collaborated with the Family Research Council to bring us the memorable event known as "Justice Sunday," where Dobson blamed the Supreme Court for "the worst Holocaust in human history." Given that the political and family components of Dobson's empire are so indistinguishable, I think it would be appropriate and necessary to file a complaint with the FCC over Focus's insidious ad buy.

Furthermore, ABC's accomodation of Focus smacks of hypocrisy. Last winter, ABC's broadcast network refused to an ad by the National Council of Churches promoting its inclusive policy to gays and other groups explicity forbidden from belonging to churches under the ideological sway of Dobson and his ilk. According to the United Methodist News Network on 12/06/04,"ABC said it would air the advertisement on its ABC Family cable channel but not on its broadcast network." ABC stifled the speech of a group which promotes inclusiveness and diversity, while enabling an organization led by a man who told the Daily Oklahoman on 10/23/04, "Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth." What am I missing?

UPDATE 5/5/05:

Americablog:

First, Microsoft caves to anti-gay radicals in the name of diversity, and before that, ABC refused to run a pro-diversity ad for the United Church of Christ. The reason ABC gave the UCC for denying their ad:

"The network doesn't take advertising from religious groups. It's a long-standing policy," said Susan Sewell, an ABC spokeswoman

You can therefore imagine everyone's surprise when ABC months later accepted an ad from the radical right religious group Focus on the Family.

Let's take a look at the Focus on the Family mission statement, shall we?

Our Mission

To cooperate with the Holy Spirit in disseminating the Gospel of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible, and, specifically, to accomplish that objective by helping to preserve traditional values and the institution of the family.

Hmmm... let's put on our ABC lawyer caps here... cooperating with the Holy Spirit... disseminating the Gospel of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible... sounds like a religious institution to me (or our foreign policy). And for a really fun reading, check out the FoF guiding principles.

Now let's look at the latest article on ABC accepting the Focus on the Family ad:

The conservative Christian ministry Focus on the Family plans to advertise its child-rearing Web site and toll-free number during the ABC reality show on Monday.

The ad is the first national television spot purchased by the group and is part of an effort to bring its faith-based advice on parenting and relationships to younger families, said Jim Daly, the group's president and CEO.

So, a "conservative Christian MINISTRY" is using these TV ads to spread its "faith-based advice" but that has NOTHING to do with a religious group or religion.

If I were the UCC, I'd be setting ABC up for a massive federal lawsuit based on religious discrimination...

5.3.2 CBS and MoveOn.Org

Peter Henderson (Reuters):

U.S. football fans will not see ads featuring scantily clad vegetarians or a political attack on President Bush during February's Super Bowl after CBS said on Thursday that advocacy advertisements were out of bounds on professional football's biggest day.

The network, over the years, has rejected dozens of advertising proposals by advocacy groups, who argue that the network only airs controversial messages that it agrees with.

"We just want to be able to present our jiggly women," said Lisa Lange, spokeswoman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, asking to join advertisers like beer brewers who has boosted sales with images of scantily-clad women.

Liberal group Moveon.org, known for its Internet funding power, told members this week that it hoped to have the first political Super Bowl ad.

But its hopes were dashed when CBS said the spot, which asks "Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1 trillion deficit?" was an issue piece and could not run.

In a letter, CBS told PETA that it would not run advertisements on "controversial issues of public importance."

CBS spokesman Dana McClintock said the policy had been in place for years. "We have a policy against accepting advocacy advertising," he added. CBS, a unit of Viacom Inc., does run political advertising for and against candidates.

CBS came under criticism in November when it decided not to run a two-part made-for-television movie, "The Reagans," after conservatives complained that it was unflattering to former president Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy.

PETA spokeswoman Lange said that CBS's broadcast of anti-smoking advertisements and even hamburger chain spots were controversial, advocacy pieces, as well.

"In essence, CBS is saying we will air an advocacy ad if we agree with the viewpoint," she said. [eRiposte emphasis]

The PETA ad shows two scantily clad women snuggling up to a meat-eating pizza delivery man. "Meat can cause impotence," the screen reads after the rendezvous fails.

CBS also said the PETA spot raised "significant taste concerns.

The Center for American Progress has also chronicled how CBS has a history of running really controversial ads for corporate sponsors, showing that its claim above is completely false. Here are some examples from CAP:

PFIZER

Last Sunday on CBS's Face the Nation Pfizer was permitted to run an ad in which they declared "Pfizer is helping people in need get the medicines they need." The statement came just weeks after Pfizer successfully lobbied to weaken the new Medicare bill so that it does not significantly lower drug prices. Additionally, Pfizer's other actions further belie their ad. The facts:

• CONTROVERSIAL: "Pfizer Inc.'s surprise cancellation Tuesday of its anti-AIDS generic drug plan for poor countries called attention to the number of other pharmaceutical companies that are contributing actively to the international effort with below-market drugs, money and other assistance." [Chicago Tribune, 11/13/03]
• CONTROVERSIAL: The Brazilian government said today that it will declare AIDS a "national emergency." The government made the decision after its negotiations to lower the price of nelfinavir, an AIDS drug now made by Hoffman-La Roche Inc. and marketed in conjunction with the U.S.-based Pfizer, broke down two weeks ago. [Washington Post, 08/23/01]

WAL-MART

Wal-Mart regularly airs ads on CBS touting itself as a good corporate citizen. Yet, Wal-Mart's corporate conduct is undoubtedly a “controversial public policy issue.” In the last two years Wal-Mart's behavior has been front page news in the New York Times on three separate occasions. The facts:

• CONTROVERSAL: "40 other current and former Wal-Mart workers interviewed over the last four months say Wal-Mart [was] forcing or pressuring employees to work hours that were not recorded or paid." [source]
• CONTROVERSAL: "Hundreds of illegal immigrants worked at its stores, and its subcontractors appear to have violated overtime, Social Security and workers' compensation laws." [source]
• CONTROVERSAL: "For more than 15 years, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, has locked in overnight employees at some of its Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores." [source]

PHILIP MORRIS USA

During the Super Bowl, CBS will air an "anti-smoking" ad by cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris USA. These ads encourage citizens to go to www.phillipmorrisusa.com for information about smoking. But on that site Philip Morris advances a number of extraordinarily controversial policy positions on smoking related issues. Some highlights:

• CONTROVERSAL: "Balancing federal, state and local budgets by raising cigarette excise taxes excessively is bad fiscal policy." [source]
• CONTROVERSAL: "Business owners should have some flexibility in deciding how best to address the preferences of non-smokers and smokers." [source]
• CONTROVERSAL: "Cigarettes should be regulated as cigarettes, not as a food, or, as FDA attempted to do in 1996, as a medical device." [source]

MOVEON.ORG

The Moveon.org ad rejected by CBS focuses on the impact of the federal deficit on children. The ad simply says that the President is responsible for the deficit and that the nation's children will have to pay for it. There is nothing controversial about this assertion.

The Facts:

• UNCONTROVERSIAL: The President's own budget documents prove the charge made in Moveon's ad that the deficit – and additional debt – is primarily due to the President's own policies. "Table S-3 of the President's own budget indicates that implementing the Administration's budget would greatly increase the deficits in 2003-2005 and obliterate the projected surpluses in 2006-2008." And while the White House says its tax cuts will spur the economy and that will fix the deficit, Table S-3 also shows this theory "is completely wrong." [National Journal, 2/11/03]
• UNCONTROVERSIAL: Simple math shows that the multi-trillion-dollar national debt will have to be paid for by America's children, as asserted in Moveon's ads. When the President took office, our projected deficit in 2008 was about $500 per family. Now it is predicted to be $84,600 per family. [source]

5.3.3 NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox News -and USAction

Via Chris Bowers (MyDD):

Remember the bill before the state legislature of Ohio intended to regulate academia? Here is one section, emphasis mine:  

(C) Faculty and instructors shall not infringe the academic freedom and quality of education of their students by persistently introducing controversial matter into the classroom or coursework that has no relation to their subject of study and that serves no legitimate pedagogical purpose.  

Now, take a look at this (again, emphasis mine):  

An advocacy group, USAction, said on Monday that four television networks had turned down its request to run an advertisement opposing President Bush's effort to clamp down on medical malpractice lawsuits.

The group wanted to run the spots just before Mr. Bush's State of the Union address on Wednesday. But networks said the advertisement violated their standards for advertising on controversial issues.

The NBC Universal Television Network, owned by General Electric, told the group, "We are sorry that we cannot accept your ad based on our network policy regarding controversial issue advertising."

As a general rule, the policy says, "time will not be sold on NBC Network facilities for the presentation of views on controversial issues." The policy does not apply to candidates for public office in election years.

ABC, CBS and the Fox Broadcasting Company said they had also turned down the advertisement.

I asked before who would define "controversial subject matter." Well, it is becoming pretty obvious that the word is becoming the main talking point used by conservatives when they aim to censor progressives. Progressive scholarship is too controversial, so it must be made illegal. Progressive advertisements criticizing Bush are too controversial, so they will not be run. I wonder what will be too controversial next.

5.3.4 NBC and Ashleigh Banfield

Danny Schecter writes in Alternet (bold text is my emphasis):

Last week MSNBC's Ashleigh Banfield spoke at a college about the coverage of the Iraq war. She was honest and critical. "There were horrors that were completely left out of this war. So was this journalism? Or was this coverage?" she asked. "As a journalist, I have been ostracized just from going on television and saying, 'Here's what the leaders of Hizbollah, a radical Moslem group, are telling me about what is needed to bring peace to Israel,'" she said. "And, 'Here's what the Lebanese are saying.' Like it or lump it, don't shoot the messenger, but that's what they do."

The "they" undoubtedly were her bosses at the GE- and Microsoft-owned channel, the same men who fired top-rated talk show host Phil Donahue and then used the war to try and out-fox Fox's jingoism with promos proclaiming "God Bless America."

They quickly sought to silence Banfield. "NBC News president Neal Shapiro has taken correspondent Ashleigh Banfield to the woodshed for a speech in which she criticized the networks for portraying the Iraqi war as 'glorious and wonderful,'" reported the Hollywood Reporter. An official NBC spokesperson later told the press, "She and we both agreed that she didn't intend to demean the work of her colleagues, and she will choose her words more carefully in the future."

It was the kind of patronizing statement you would expect in Pravda or Baghdad's old Ministry of misinformation. In Saddam's Iraq, she would have been done for. Let's see what happens at NBC. Already, Rush Limbaugh is calling on her to move to Al Jazeera. Michael Savage, the new rightwing host on MSNBC who replaced Donahue, has branded his own colleague a "slut" ... on the air!

5.3.5 PBS and "Postcards from Buster"

Eric Boehlert (Salon.com):

On Wednesday afternoon this week, elementary school children and their parents in the Boston area who were watching public television got to see perhaps the only educational cartoon ever forced to fend off efforts to ban it. Given the Bush administration's success in keeping the show off the air -- except in Boston and a handful of other PBS markets -- it might not be the last time, as cultural conservatives and the Public Broadcasting System seem destined to continue to do battle over programming. And considering how quickly PBS conceded defeat this round, that battle may become increasingly lopsided.

The controversy surrounding the children's series "Postcards From Buster," featuring a cartoon bunny who, in one episode, visits Vermont to make maple syrup and meets children from two families headed by lesbian couples, generated headlines last week when incoming Education Secretary Margaret Spellings lambasted the episode as inappropriate. Many observers likely viewed the showdown as little more than another head-shaking episode in the ongoing culture war. (The "Buster" flap erupted the same week that Christian talk show host James Dobson warned parents that a classroom video on intolerance featuring SpongeBob SquarePants "could prompt [teachers] to teach kids that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality.")

But for PBS insiders and longtime supporters, the skirmish, and the speed with which PBS backed down in the face of threats from the Bush administration, mark a new low point for the broadcasting institution and a dangerous development for the public. Low because the content of the "Buster" episode was so innocuous. And dangerous because it highlights the inside-the-Beltway environment in which PBS is forced to operate, where funding concerns often trump programming decisions, and the fear of upsetting conservatives has become a driving force.

5.3.6 CNN and Log Cabin Republicans

Josh Marshall:

An amazing update on the rapid decline of CNN. Now, apparently, only intolerant Republicans can get a fair shake.

The pro-gay rights Republican group Log Cabin Republicans is running a thirty-second ad in favor of an inclusive, rather than an intolerant Republican party. The ad's running on other channels. Even Fox News has agreed to run it nationally, according to Christopher Barron, an LCR representative.

But CNN has refused to run it, calling it "too controversial."

5.3.7 CNN and the Iraq War (Christiane Amanpour)

Via the Carpetbagger Report:

In a CNBC interview with Tina Brown, Amanpour was asked if the administration effectively rolled over the media in advance of the war, as journalists accepted the White House's rhetoric blindly and without skepticism.

"I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled," Amanpour said. "I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did."

5.3.8 Chicago Tribune and Boondocks

Dan Gillmor comments:

Tribune Kills Anti-Bush Cartoon

It's over the top, I agree, but the paper explained its decisions to readers, according to Romenesko, this way: "Today's original Boondocks strip presents inaccurate information as fact."

Maybe someone should tell the Trib about those horoscopes it runs, not to mention at least some of the advertising...

This was one of the most obvious cases of pro-Bush censorship. As Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler said:

Yesterday, public editor Don Wycliff explained what happened. Two Boondocks strips had been pulled this week, and readers had written in to complain. One had even used the term “censorship.” Wycliff replied, in high dudgeon:

WYCLIFF (3/3/05): Let the record show that what Mr. McWilliams calls censorship we at the newspaper call editing. What he and a dozen or so other readers were complaining about was the decision of Geoff Brown, the associate managing editor for features/lifestyles, to not publish the Monday and Tuesday "The Boondocks” strips.

Brown said the problem was the same on both days: "The Boondocks” creator Aaron McGruder had characters stating as fact things that were not.

For the record, we would support that general principle. In a newspaper, comedians, humorists and cartoon writers shouldn’t be allowed to use fake facts to set up their hilarious punch lines. If a comic strip is pimping false facts, an editor might well decide not to run it. But what was the alleged fake fact in Boondocks—the fake fact the Tribune refused to run? All of a sudden, the Tribune is being extremely careful about these troubling misstatements:

WYCLIFF (continuing directly): One strip showed a character, Caesar, looking at a newspaper...and relating to another character, Huey, the news that "[President] Bush got recorded admitting that he smoked weed.” ...

Funny, perhaps, but only if you ignore that Bush was not recorded admitting that he smoked marijuana. As Brown pointed out in a heads-up memo in advance of the strip's publication date, "All reputable news sources reporting [on] the tapes were careful to draw INFERENCES, but no one can say Bush admitted to drug use."

Holy mackerel! All of a sudden, the Tribune is really a stickler for facts! It’s true—you had to infer that Bush smoked weed from the recorded phone call at issue. But the “inference” slapped you right in the face if you listened to what Bush said. In fact, you had to torture all earthly logic to avoid the obvious inference. Yes, if human beings can reason at all, George Bush has now said he smoked weed.

So yes—all of a sudden, the Chicago Tribune is being a bear when it comes to permitting fake facts. The Trib just won’t permit fake facts—if they appear on the comics page, and if the facts cut against Bush. But we couldn’t help asking an obvious question: Why doesn’t this mighty paper pursue fake facts on its news pages, too? In fact, those pages are littered with phony facts, and no one seems to give a good golly! Of course, the phony facts that the Tribune allows are fake facts that serve to help Bush.

...

By the way, how alert were Tribune editors during Campaign 2000, when the paper was printing fake facts about Gore? Let’s assume that we don’t have to ask. Did George Bush say that he smoked some weed? Editors are touchy about such a statement. But editors must have been in the Bahamas when the paper’s Washington bureau chief, James Warren, published this utter embarrassment—this repulsive string of fake, phony facts, the fake facts that turned an election:

WARREN (3/19/00): Poor Al Gore. We pick on him, but we like him. Al Gore is very nice. He's a good guy. But he keeps getting in trouble for taking credit for things he had nothing to do with. Remember first he said he was the inspiration for the book "Love Story." Remember that? That wasn't true. Then he said he invented the Internet. Remember that? That was false. Then just last week he claimed to have exposed the Love Canal scandal. That was false too. You know what's ironic? The only thing he'll really be able to take credit for—getting George W. Bush elected.

Al Gore said he invented the Internet! By this time, a stream of half-witted Tribune writers had been making the fake claim for a good solid year. And by the way, how fact-challenged was the hapless Warren? Gore’s misquoted statement about Love Canal occurred in November 1999. Four months later, Warren weirdly reported that Gore had made the statement “just last week.” It’s hard to be more clueless than that. But somehow, the Tribune’s concern about fake facts failed to trigger at this juncture. The paper continued printing utter bullsh*t about Candidate Gore right through the November election.

We’ve told you this again and again—if they didn’t exist, you couldn’t invent them. The Chicago Tribune hates fake facts—in its comic strips, about Bush. All other fake facts? They’re encouraged.

5.3.9 Clear Channel and the Dixie Chicks

Here:

Country music's No. 1 act, The Dixie Chicks, have been pulled from radio playlists thanks to a remark singer Natalie Maines made in London last week.

"Just so you know," Texas native Maines said on stage, "we're ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas." Maines added she felt George W. Bush's foreign policy is alienating the rest of the world.

Her remark unleashed a nationwide backlash. The group's records have been pulled by dozens of country-music stations across the country, including two Clear Channel-owned stations in Jacksonville, WQIK 99.1-FM and WROO 107.3-FM.

"Out of respect for our troops, our city and our listeners, [we] have taken the Dixie Chicks off our playlists," said Gail Austin, Clear Channel's director of programming for the two Jacksonville stations.

That's a big leap in logic, said media expert Dennis Stouse, a Jacksonville University professor and chairman of the school's department of communications. "It doesn't have anything to do with our troops or our city."

Punishing Maines for speaking her mind does not fit into the American idea of democracy, he said. "We should accept the fact that there are viewpoints we don't agree with." Celebrities have as much right to make political commentary as do television pundits, he added.

5.3.10 Clear Channel (Various)

Robert Millman (Buzzflash):

Update: Read Robert's "My Fight with Clear Channel"

BuzzFlash Note: On Monday we posted in the mailbag a letter from Robert about his radio ads. Today we heard the ads, heard that Clear Channel wouldn't air them -- despite that Robert was paying the regular ad rate for them to air -- and had to help. Here's the point of the issue: the airwaves are the property of the American people. The FCC licenses bandwidth, but they are our airwaves. And here is a radio company refusing a person the right to pay to express their opinion. It's like having censors in the Soviet Union. We hope that highlighting these ads brings them wide national coverage. They deserve it. Listen to all seven of them, send the pages to your friends and family, and, if you can afford it, try and get them on your local radio station. 

Radio Ad: Dissent

DISSENT
This is a paid radio moment–
Some of us disagree with the President.
We think the Iraq war is a mess.
We think vote suppression is a crime.
We think tax cuts for the rich are a bad idea.
We think business doesn’t know best. (pause)
And we think dissent is an American value. (pause)
This country was born because people questioned authority.
It’s as American as apple pie.

Source Watch:

According to the company's web pages, "Clear Channel Worldwide (Clear Channel Communications, Inc., NYSE: CCU), headquartered in San Antonio, TX, is a global leader in the out-of-home advertising industry with radio and television stations, outdoor displays, and entertainment venues in 66 countries around the world. Including announced transactions, Clear Channel operates approximately 1,225 radio and 39 television stations in the United States and has equity interests in over 240 radio stations internationally. Clear Channel also operates approximately 776,000 outdoor advertising displays, including billboards, street furniture and transit panels around the world. Clear Channel Entertainment is a leading promoter, producer and marketer of live entertainment events and also owns leading athlete management and marketing companies."

Self-Censorship

Following the September 2001 terrorist attacks, Clear Channel program directors issued a list of "potentially offensive songs" that it suggested stations not play. Many reports referred to the list as a "ban" on the songs, which included all Rage Against The Machine songs, the Notorious B.I.G.'s "Juicy" (which includes the line "Time to get paid, blow up like the World Trade"), John Lennon's "Imagine," Metallica's "Seek and Destroy," AC/DC's "Safe in New York," Bobby Darin's "Mack the Knife," Peter, Paul and Mary's "Leaving on a Jet Plane," and Jerry Lee Lewis' "Great Balls of Fire," and "The Drifters' On Broadway."

Clear Channel spokesperson Pam Taylor objected to the list being called a "ban," saying, ""This was an effort to help people be sensitive to the unthinkable environment. It's been somehow turned into some sort of evil attempt to control pop music, and that's absurd."[1] According to the New York Times, "a smaller list of questionable songs was originally generated by the corporate office, but an overzealous regional executive began contributing suggestions and circulating the list via e-mail, where it continued to grow." The program directors at individual stations were able to decide whether to play the listed songs or not.[2]

Also, in 2003, "after the Dixie Chicks criticized President Bush during a London performance ... some Clear Channel radio stations pulled the group's music from their play lists."[3] According to the New York Times (March 31, 2003), "More unified were the actions of Cumulus Media, which owns 262 stations, and has at least temporarily stopped all 42 of its country stations from playing the Dixie Chicks."

Pro-War Rallies

The Clear Channel's activities go beyond radio. In March 2003, its affiliate stations throughout the United States organized pro-war rallies, under the name of Rally for America, to coincide with the Bush administration's launch of war with Iraq. "Experienced Bushologists let out a collective 'Aha!' when Clear Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush," reported Paul Krugman in the New York Times. Although Clear Channel denied sponsoring the rallies, "they were promoted repeatedly by the company's widely syndicated radio personality, Glenn Beck."[4]

To counter negative impressions resulting from the post-9/11 playlist and "Rally for America" debacles, Clear Channel hired the crisis-management firm Brainerd Communicators. According to the New York Times (March 31, 2003), part of Clear Channel's damage control included an op/ed article by Glenn Beck in which "Mr. Beck described the [pro-war] rallies as a grassroots response to his personal broadcast call to 'Mr. and Mrs. America' to urge their local radio stations to hold rallies."

Breaking the Law

In their "Ten Worst Corporations of 2003" list, Robert Weissman and Russell Mokhiber report that Clear Channel has "compiled a record of 'repeated law-breaking' ... violating the law -- including prohibitions on deceptive advertising and on broadcasting conversations without obtaining permission of the second party to the conversation -- on 36 separate occasions over the previous three years."[5]

Bush Connections

"The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a multimillionaire." [6]

"In addition, Hicks steered a controversial scheme to use the University of Texas' $13 billion endowment for private investment. Among the beneficiaries were the Carlyle Group, the arms investment firm tied to both George Bush Snr and the bin Laden family, and George W Bush's controversial Harken Oil drilling project in Bahrain."[7]

Data released by the Center for Responsive Politics in early 2004 revealed that Clear Channel executives donated $42,200 to Bush compared to $1,750 to Democrat Presidental candidate John Kerry. Clear Channel's [political action committee] contributed 77% of their $334,501 in federal contributions to Republicans. [8]

5.3.11 Sinclair Broadcasting and "Nightline" Iraq program

CNN:

The decision of Sinclair Broadcast Group, which ordered its seven ABC stations not to broadcast Friday's "Nightline," has received criticism from U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona).

Friday's show will air the names and photographs of the more than 500 U.S. troops killed in the Iraq war.

"Your decision to deny your viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war's terrible costs, in all their heartbreaking detail, is a gross disservice to the public, and to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces," McCain, a Vietnam veteran, wrote in a letter to David Smith, president and CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group. "It is, in short, sir, unpatriotic. I hope it meets with the public opprobrium it most certainly deserves."

In a statement online, the Sinclair group said the "Nightline" program "appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq."

Sinclair's decision, announced Thursday, drew angry calls from the public and a sharp response from ABC News.

"We respectfully disagree with Sinclair's decision to pre-empt 'Nightline's' tribute to America's fallen soldiers," ABC News said in a statement. "The 'Nightline' broadcast is an expression of respect which simply seeks to honor those who have laid down their lives for this country."

Some of the stations have received many calls and e-mails in response to Sinclair's decision.

"I have not gotten one positive response," said an assignment desk editor at WSYX, the ABC station in Columbus, Ohio.

5.3.12 New York Times and Other ICM outlets - and the Bush bulge

This is a particularly interesting case because when newspapers were quoting Bush's tailor as if he were an expert, they refused to report the claims of a scientist.

As Extra! went to press, New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent posted a message on his website (12/21/04) confirming that his paper had, in fact, killed a story about the device under George W. Bush’s suit. Here is the text of Okrent’s message:

President Bush and the Jacket Bulge

Online discussion of the famous bulge on President Bush’s back at the first presidential debate hasn’t stopped. One reporter (Dave Lindorff of Salon.com) asserted that the Times had a story in the works about a NASA scientist who had done a careful study of the graphic evidence, but it was spiked by the paper’s top editors sometime during the week before the election. Many readers have asked me for an explanation.

I checked into Lindorff’s assertion, and he’s right. The story’s life at the Times began with a tip from the NASA scientist, Robert Nelson, to reporter Bill Broad. Soon his colleagues on the science desk, John Schwartz and Andrew Revkin, took on the bulk of the reporting. Science editor Laura Chang presented the story at the daily news meeting but, like many other stories, it did not make the cut. According to executive editor Bill Keller, "In the end, nobody, including the scientist who brought it up, could take the story beyond speculation. In the crush of election-finale stories, it died a quiet, unlamented death."

Revkin, for one, wished it had run. Here’s what he told me in an e-mail message:

I can appreciate the broader factors weighing on the paper’s top editors, particularly that close to the election. But personally, I think that Nelson’s assertions did rise above the level of garden-variety speculation, mainly because of who he is. Here was a veteran government scientist, whose decades-long career revolves around interpreting imagery like features of Mars, who decided to say very publicly that, without reservation, he was convinced there was something under a president’s jacket when the White House said there was nothing. He essentially put his hard-won reputation utterly on the line (not to mention his job) in doing so and certainly with little prospect that he might gain something as a result—except, as he put it, his preserved integrity. [eRiposte emphasis]

Revkin also told me that before Nelson called Broad, he had approached other media outlets as well. None—until Salon—published anything on Nelson’s analysis. "I’d certainly choose [Nelson’s] opinion over that of a tailor," Revkin concluded, referring to news reports that cited the man who makes the president’s suits. "Hard to believe that so many in the media chose the tailor, even in coverage after the election." [eRiposte emphasis]

5.3.13 New York Times and Paul Krugman

Kurtz:

He had written 16 books by the fall of 1999 when "out of the blue," says Krugman, Howell Raines, then running the Times editorial page, called and offered him a twice-weekly column.

It wasn't long before Krugman started ripping the Republican presidential candidate, though he says Raines barred him from using the word "lying" for the duration of the campaign.

After Bush won, Krugman wrote: "The big lesson of this year's campaign . . . is that a candidate can get away with saying things that are demonstrably untrue, as long as the untruths involve big numbers."

5.3.14 Washington Post and the Iraq war

Howard Kurtz: 

"...Days before the Iraq war began, veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus put together a story questioning whether the Bush administration had proof that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction. But he ran into resistance from the paper's editors, and his piece ran only after assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, who was researching a book about the drive toward war, "helped sell the story," Pincus recalled. "Without him, it would have had a tough time getting into the paper." Even so, the article was relegated to Page A17.
…
Some reporters who were lobbying for greater prominence for stories that questioned the administration's evidence complained to senior editors who, in the view of those reporters, were unenthusiastic about such pieces. The result was coverage that, despite flashes of groundbreaking reporting, in hindsight looks strikingly one-sided at times..."

Bob Woodward

"...We should have warned readers we had information that the basis for this was shakier …Those are exactly the kind of statements that should be published on the front page..."

5.3.15 Sinclair Broadcasting and the DNC

Sinclair Action provides another example:

SinclairAction was organized by Media Matters for America and supported by MoveOn, MediaChannel.org, Free Press, Working Assets, Campaign for America's Future, AlterNet, and Robert Greenwald (director of Outfoxed) in response to Sinclair Broadcast Group's systematic pattern of forwarding a conservative political agenda while censoring alternative viewpoints.

In 2003, a Sinclair TV station in Madison, Wisconsin, refused to air an ad from the Democratic National Committee that three other non-Sinclair network affiliates in the same market agreed to air.

5.3.16 Comcast Cable and anti-war ads by Peace Action Education Fund

Newsguild (Feb 03):

Media objections to the Pentagon’s assertion of authority was too muted to be heard. Instead, press organizations seemed more intent on ensuring that no one suspected them of anti-war sentiments. The BCC, for example, banned its senior journalists from attending the largest anti-war demonstration in that country’s history, on Feb. 15—although junior staff were permitted to march as long as they did so “purely in a private capacity.”

Meanwhile, the beating of war drums threw into high relief the dangers of media monopoly, as Comcast Cable refused to sell commercial air time to the Peace Action Education Fund, which sought to run 30-second anti-war ads. Comcast explained that it wouldn’t run any ad “that fails to substantiate certain claims or charges.”

5.3.17 CNN, Fox News, NBC and the Win Without War Coalition

Newsguild (Feb 03):

CNN, Fox and NBC, meanwhile, declined to run ads prepared by the Win Without War coalition; a CNN spokeswoman explained the decision by saying “we do not accept international advocacy ads on regions in conflict.”

Also see here.

5.3.18 Tribune Media Services and Robert Koehler

BradBlog:

Looks like others have taken notice of the Tribune Media Service spiking Robert Koehler's column this week as discussed previously on BRAD BLOG.

Editor & Publisher ran an article on it yesterday.

BradBlog:

What began innocently enough with a watershed article several weeks ago by Tribune Media Service's Robert Koehler on the need for Election Reform and an investigation into the results of Election 2004, has now erupted into a full-fledged firestorm resulting Wednesday afternoon in the unprecedented rejection of Koehler's latest column by the higher-ups at TMS where Koehler is both a columnist and editor!

Tribune Media Services is the syndication arm of the Tribune Company which, in turn, is the parent company to the Chicago Tribune.

Koehler's original ground-breaking column from April -- the first by an American Mainstream Media journalist that we know of to out-and-out charge that the 2004 Election was stolen -- was written a few days after Koehler attended the National Election Reform Conference last month in Nashville. The piece was headlined "The Silent Scream of Numbers: The 2004 election was stolen — will someone please tell the media?"

He followed it up the next week with another stunner headlined "Democracy's Abu Ghraib — If they can disable an election, what's coming next?"

While both pieces were distributed via TMS to syndicate member newspapers, only a handful chose to run either of those two columns.

Most notably, however, despite Chicago Tribune itself having chosen to run neither column, their "Public Editor", Don Wycliffe, found it appropriate to write a column in the Trib's pages wherein he rebutted Koehler's original piece. Wycliff's rebuttal, as reported here previously, attempted to discredit Koehler's column, Koehler himself, and those of us who might give a damn about democracy and the responsibility that the people (and yes, that would include the media) have to remain vigilant in order to sustain it.

Wycliff's column, citing the "moral example" of Richard Nixon (yes, not kidding) as the figure whom Americans ought to follow in regards to potentially stolen elections, has erupted in a torrent of email directed towards the misguided and/or misinformed Wycliff and in support of Koehler.

Koehler once again hits a home-run with this week's column in response to Wycliff's. Or at least he would have had the Masters of Tribune Media Services not killed the article for the first time in Koehler's career!...

As Koehler explained to The BRAD BLOG this evening, not only is this the first time that he's had a column spiked by the higher-ups at TMS, it's the first time they've even bothered to have one of his columns "shown around" to determine it's appropriateness before it went out!

Koehler took pains to point out that his managing editor, Mary Elson, has been extremely supportive of his work on both his latest and past columns and was, in fact, the one who gave him the okay to attend the conference in Nashville in the first place. It was that conference which apparently opened his eyes to the crime against democracy which seems to have occured last November. Actually examining the evidence will do that to a fellow.

The unprecedented decision to spike his piece, it seems, came not from Elson, but from higher up on the TMS food chain late this afternoon, just hours before deadline.

After he was told the piece would not be syndicated, Koehler quickly cobbled together a replacement column with quotes drawn from the mountain of Email he has received since this entire affair began.

The spiked column, headlined "Citizens in the Rain — Maybe we can't have election reform without media reform", which will not apparently be distributed at all via Tribune Media Services (Hey, Mr. Wycliff! Sounds like you may have another great opportunity to write a rebuttal!) is now available only via Koehler's personal website at CommonWonders.com.

The higher-ups who spiked the column claimed that Koehler's response to Wycliff was somehow too "personal". Though having read it -- and having read Wycliff's direct response to Koehler's original column -- we find that pill a bit hard to swallow.

5.3.19 CBS and Ronald Reagan miniseries

CNN:

Capping an extraordinary conservative furor over a movie virtually no one has seen, CBS said Tuesday it will not air "The Reagans" and shunt it off to the Showtime cable network instead.

Based on snippets of the script that had leaked out in recent weeks, conservatives, including the son of the former president, accused CBS of distorting the legacy of Ronald Reagan.

While CBS said it was not bowing to political pressure, critics said that was exactly the case, and worried about the effects of such pre-emptive strikes on future work.

CBS believed it had ordered a love story about Ronald and Nancy Reagan with politics as a backdrop, but instead got a film that crossed the line into advocacy, said a network executive who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The film had been scheduled to air November 16 and 18, in the heart of the November ratings sweeps. CBS attempted to edit the film to remove offending passages, but gave up.

"We believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience," the network said in a statement Tuesday.

Neal Gabler, author of "Life the Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality," said CBS' decision was unhealthy for democracy.

"CBS, in pulling this film, did incredible harm, much more harm than they could ever have done in making the film," Gabler said. "What they've told us now is that a very small group of people have censorship power over the broadcast networks."

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said CBS' decision "smells of intimidation to me."

'They made a business decision'

But conservatives said it was a question of accuracy.

The miniseries became a hot topic on talk radio and the TV news networks. The chairman of the Republican National Committee wrote to CBS President Leslie Moonves, asking for historians to review the movie, and the conservative Media Research Center asked advertisers to consider boycotting the film.

5.3.20 CBS and coverage of misleading/false report by Bush administration to go to war

I saw this at FAIR:

...CBS puts Niger expose on hold as boss endorses Republicans

...In an outrageous politicization of journalism, CBS announced it would not air a report on forged documents that the Bush administration used to sell the Iraq war until after the November 2 election (New York Times, 9/25/04). A network spokesperson issued a statement declaring, "We now believe it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election."

The 60 Minutes segment was ready to air on September 8, but was bumped in favor of the now infamous report that relied on supposed National Guard memos whose authenticity CBS now says it cannot confirm. The furor over the Guard memos has created a situation where CBS executives say "the network can now not credibly air a report questioning how the Bush administration could have gotten taken in by phony documents" (Newsweek online, 9/22/04).

Of course, what's really inappropriate here is CBS allowing its PR problems to suppress a news report on an important issue until after it no longer matters. The shelved 60 Minutes story deals with the origins of documents purportedly showing that Iraq under Saddam Hussein tried to obtain uranium from Niger-- documents that turned out to be forgeries. The story, according to the Newsweek online report, asks "tough questions about how the White House came to embrace the fraudulent documents and why administration officials chose to include a 16-word reference to the questionable uranium purchase in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech."

Though such questions are clearly relevant to a presidential campaign that largely revolves around Bush's decision to invade Iraq, CBS intends to keep the answers to itself until the election has passed. Could there be more than the embarrassment over the Guard story behind this decision?

Sumner Redstone, CEO of CBS's parent company Viacom, made an unusual political statement at a gathering of corporate leaders in Hong Kong (Asian Wall Street Journal, 9/24/04):

"I don't want to denigrate Kerry... but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people.... But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."

Also see Carpetbagger Report.

5.3.21 Viacom and Compare, Decide, Vote

FAIR:

The independent progressive group Compare Decide Vote produced an ad comparing the presidential candidates' policy positions on issues important to young people, which the group says was accepted for placement by MTV Network's Comedy Central. Two days later, the station rejected the ad, citing an MTV Networks policy against running advocacy ads (Washington Post, 10/13/04).

"The reason behind our policy distinction between issue-ads and political campaign ads is simply that across all our properties, we talk about these issues every day," explained a Viacom spokesperson (Media Daily News, 10/13/04).

That reasoning—that outside perspectives on important political issues are blocked because Viacom's own coverage of the issues is sufficient—is undermined by CBS's recent decision to hold until after the election a 60 Minutes story on forged documents that the Bush administration used to sell the Iraq war. The network said it "would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election." (See FAIR Action Alert, 9/28/04.)

DailyKos:

Kos just broke the Viacom scandal on the front page, but here is some more background.

Viacom is in on the game as well. They have refused to air this ad by a youth GOTV outfit -- Compare | Decide | Vote. They also refuse to air the organization's two other ads (here and here.)

This outfit is targetting the same-day registration states -- Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine, and New  Hampshire, but Viacome won't air their ads. And Viacom controls just about every youth-oriented cable station (Comedy Central, MTV, VH-1, BET).

5.3.22 Fox News and CNN and reporting on Al Qaeda post 9/11

FAIR:

On October 10, television network executives from ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and CNN held a conference call with national security adviser Condoleeza Rice, and apparently acceded to her "suggestion" that any future taped statements from Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda group be "abridged," and any potentially "inflammatory" language removed before broadcast.

The question of how to present the words of bin Laden or representatives of Al Qaeda is certainly a valid one for journalists to consider. The statements require context and explanation of the kind journalists should use to bracket the remarks of any party in a major news story. But it is inappropriate for the government to dictate to journalists how to report the news. In the context of recent heavy-handedness on the part of the administration (including White House spokesman Ari Fleischer's ominous remark that Americans "need to watch what they say"), Rice's request suggests that the White House is actually asking for something other than simple journalistic judgement.

Originally the administration expressed concern about the possibility of Al Qaeda members sending "coded messages" to their followers in the segments. But Rice's main argument to the networks seems to have been that bin Laden's statements must be restricted because of their content. NBC News chief Neal Shapiro told the New York Times that Rice's main point "was that here was a charismatic speaker who could arouse anti-American sentiment getting 20 minutes of air time to spew hatred and urge his followers to kill Americans."

Although presented as only a call for caution, there's a danger that the White House conference call may make broadcasters think twice about airing any footage of bin Laden at all.

The following day, Fleischer took the administration's campaign further and contacted major newspapers to request that they consider not printing full transcripts of bin Laden's messages. "The request is to report the news to the American people," said Fleischer. "But if you report it in its entirety, that could raise concerns that he's getting his prepackaged, pretaped message out" (New York Times, 10/12/01).

To its credit, the Times has apparently resisted such requests, but some media executives seem to actually appreciate the White House pressure. "We'll do whatever is our patriotic duty,'' said News Corp executive Rupert Murdoch (Reuters, 10/11/01). In an official statement, CNN declared: "In deciding what to air, CNN will consider guidance from appropriate authorities'' (Associated Press, 10/10/01). CNN chief Walter Isaacson added, "After hearing Dr. Rice, we're not going to step on the land mines she was talking about" (New York Times, 10/11/01).

The point is not that bin Laden or Al Qaeda deserve "equal time" on U.S. news broadcasts, but that it is troubling for government to shape or influence news content. Withholding information from the public is hardly patriotic. When the White House insists that it's dangerous to report a news event "in its entirety," alarm bells should go off for journalists and the American public alike.