Fox Refuses To Air Gay N.Y. Candidate's TV Ad

[lithuanianmafia]

A New York City affiliate of broadcaster Fox News has rejected a campaign advertisement for a Democratic politician that lampoons President George W Bush by superimposing his head on a naked torso.

The ad, produced by Brian Ellner, an openly gay candidate for Manhattan Borough president, opens with a close-up of Bush's face and zooms out to show the torso from the hips up, with a voice-over saying, "New Yorkers know the emperor has no clothes."

Ellner also introduces his male partner during the 30-second commercial.

A spokeswoman for Fox's WNYW/Channel 5 affiliate said the channel was not running the ad, but declined to say why. A spokeswoman for Fox News Channel said: "The decision was made at the station level."

Ellner said on Tuesday, "This is censorship and it's un-American. ... It's either anti-gay because I introduce my partner, or it's anti-free speech because I criticise the president."

He said the three major networks and many other cable channels accepted the ad.

Ellner said WNYW representatives told his campaign officials that the ad was rejected because Fox viewed it as disrespectful to the office of the president.

"Fox claims that this ad is disrespectful to the president. What is truly disrespectful to Manhattan voters is to deny them the chance to hear a serious message from a candidate for public office," Ellner said.

Part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp empire, Fox News operates under the slogan "Fair and Balanced."

According to an annual report by a research arm of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, its audience is increasingly more Republican than viewers of other cable channels.

Now the question is was his ad not aired because of the fact he's a Democrat, or that he's gay? Either way, I believe this is giving an unfair advantage to his Republican opponent because his ads will be shown exclusively on the channel. "Fair and Balanced" my ass :rolleyes:

[Esperante]

Here's the news.


It's FOX.


There is no news. :rolleyes:

[my porsche]

they do have the right to choose who they let advertise, you know :D

[lithuanianmafia]

they do have the right to choose who they let advertise, you know :D
regardless, it still gives an advantage to the Republican candiate over Ellner

[ZeTurbo]

Now the question is was his ad not aired because of the fact he's a Democrat, or that he's gay? Either way, I believe this is giving an unfair advantage to his Republican opponent because his ads will be shown exclusively on the channel. "Fair and Balanced" my ass :rolleyes:
are you even surprised FOX did something like this?

they do have the right to choose who they let advertise, you know :D
True. But it shows plainly FOX's real colours.


Here's the news.


It's FOX.


There is no news. :rolleyes:
GOLD!

[Egg Nog]

they do have the right to choose who they let advertise, you know :D

It's brutal that they'd do something like this regardless of situation. I'm hardly surprised though.

Are you in favour of this then? It's hard to defend what they've done without sounding homophobic - what's your stance?

[my porsche]

ok well lets see, really when you get down to it only republicans watch fox news, so it really wont give any advantage what-so-ever, my opinion :P

[Egg Nog]

ok well lets see, really when you get down to it only republicans watch fox news, so it really wont give any advantage what-so-ever, my opinion :P

Sounds like you're dodging what I'm trying to get at...

[my porsche]

what? no no no... im in no way a homophobe, im just stating in this age of free rights freedom of speach etc. that choosing advertisers to the taste of the channel isnt that bad, fox is a conservative channel...no big news there, so they qould choose a non gay non democrat candidate's commerical over a gay democrat's commercial

do you understand what im saying? i probably was confusing

[Matt]

I thought there were laws dictating that when a network gives time to one candidate, they have to give equal time to the other. Or is that only in the Presidential race?

[my porsche]

i think thats only the presidential race

[PininfarinaPIMP]

Typical ne-con conservative, republican, anti-gay, bible bashing, asswipes...

[ZemoButts]

FOX airs the Jerry Springer show they have no true colours

[scottie300z]

regardless, it still gives an advantage to the Republican candiate over Ellner

I always thought the media had to give equal coverage. So in some way they may have to make up for it.

And it is fox's right they can do that if they want to. Frankly this is one subject where they do have some taste, superimposing george W's head on a naked torso and making a reference to the emporer has no clothes? not very tasteful and frankly pretty stupid. And i dont like the ol george W. This candidate should thank fox for not showing something that will most likely do more harm to his campaign then otherwise.

[crisis]

Without seeing it, its hard to say but if it is purely a sensationalist exercise in trying to shock and goad conservatives by attacking their beliefs and morals then he got what he deserved. I have kind of a low tolerance for people who take the cheap easy way out to get coverage. Has this guy actually got anything usefull to contribute?If so pehaps run with that. Crying homophobe soundls like the angle this guy was looking for.
Also creating an image of someone that is purely intended to offend them is chaep as well.

[Spastik_Roach]

Now I wonder if this person was not gay and republican but put, say, John Kerrys head on a naked torso?

It only proves FOX's right wing conservatist stance more and more, especially seeing as the other stations will air it.

[Matra et Alpine]

they do have the right to choose who they let advertise, you know :D
the BEST reason why advertising for political posts should NOT be left to the vagaries of commercial decision makers with their OWN agendas.

Are you telling us that in the US the ONLY way to get air time for a political candidate is to buy it ? Is their no guaranteed air-time for candidates to put their case ? Whata bout within channel programming, are political shows required to give equal comment and air time to all candidates ?

Is there NO check and balance to prevent this level of suppression by a media channel ??

Scary :(

Please tell me I'm wrong !

[Wouter Melissen]

This might actually work out just fine for this candidate. Think about it; if FOX had aired this ad nobody would have noticed and the ad would have only reached republicans. Now with the funky FOX reaction everybody instantly knows about the ad and the candidate. Fox have shot themselves in the leg with this one.

[Spastik_Roach]

This might actually work out just fine for this candidate. Think about it; if FOX had aired this ad nobody would have noticed and the ad would have only reached republicans. Now with the funky FOX reaction everybody instantly knows about the ad and the candidate. Fox have shot themselves in the leg with this one.

Interesting point there.

[McReis]

i think thats only the presidential race


Wrong. The law is equal on every democracy. Both sides have the same right to use TV or radio time. Wether they decide to use it or not is up to them.

[scottie300z]

Now I wonder if this person was not gay and republican but put, say, John Kerrys head on a naked torso?

It only proves FOX's right wing conservatist stance more and more, especially seeing as the other stations will air it.

It would only prove it if somebody actually did put john kerrys head on a naked torso and they let it air. Otherwise its not really proof, as it is possible they didnt allow it to air for other reasons.

Also i dont think it said what time the commercial was to air, and that affects alot of things. Fox may air the jerry springer show for example but they wont air it at certain times. And certain subject material that is deamed inappropriate to certain ages is not allowed to air at certain times as well. Think about the kids people, should they be subjected to this type of material?

And this may give the candidate some publicity in other areas b/c of the issue but if his commercial ran he'd get the viewers of the commercial plus any other publicity that would have ran about the content of the commercial b/c w/ content like that there still would have been atleast some. So does he get more publicity this way or the other way? Does this way offset the number of people that would have seen the commercial?

Also i dont remember it saying the exact reason the commercial wasnt aired so i think it should be considered that any reason you may think is actually just guesswork. But that doesnt mean it shouldnt be considered im just saying consider all reasons, pros and cons.

[Matt]

It would only prove it if somebody actually did put john kerrys head on a naked torso and they let it air. Otherwise its not really proof, as it is possible they didnt allow it to air for other reasons.

Also i dont think it said what time the commercial was to air, and that affects alot of things. Fox may air the jerry springer show for example but they wont air it at certain times. And certain subject material that is deamed inappropriate to certain ages is not allowed to air at certain times as well. Think about the kids people, should they be subjected to this type of material?

And this may give the candidate some publicity in other areas b/c of the issue but if his commercial ran he'd get the viewers of the commercial plus any other publicity that would have ran about the content of the commercial b/c w/ content like that there still would have been atleast some. So does he get more publicity this way or the other way? Does this way offset the number of people that would have seen the commercial?

Also i dont remember it saying the exact reason the commercial wasnt aired so i think it should be considered that any reason you may think is actually just guesswork. But that doesnt mean it shouldnt be considered im just saying consider all reasons, pros and cons.

Fox shows Jerry Springer at 9am here. I don't think they're worried about the kids.

[SIMPLETON]

Fox shows Jerry Springer at 9am here. I don't think they're worried about the kids.
MOst kids are in school at that time. And the ones that arent would watch exaclty that type of show.

[my porsche]

the BEST reason why advertising for political posts should NOT be left to the vagaries of commercial decision makers with their OWN agendas.

Are you telling us that in the US the ONLY way to get air time for a political candidate is to buy it ? Is their no guaranteed air-time for candidates to put their case ? Whata bout within channel programming, are political shows required to give equal comment and air time to all candidates ?

i dont fully understand what uyou mean


in a capatalist society, anyone can do anything they want within the law to better benefit their interests.

[ZemoButts]

MOst kids are in school at that time. And the ones that arent would watch exaclty that type of show.

i live in canda and the Jerry Springer show comes on at 3:00pm right around when school ends

[scottie300z]

well that is canada...ya'll are a bit weird. j/k

But im also sure the fcc doesnt really have any push in canada. so there would be a different set of rules. But i know that here in tx, it comes on at 1pm to 2pm then again at like 11pm. so nobody of school age will really see it.

I think it could also be reasoned that maybe the station didnt want to risk any fcc offense. The fcc has been cutting down on what they consider "lewd" and it only takes 1 complaint from a viewer for them to investigate something. So maybe fox didnt want to risk it. That is a possibility that should be considered. There are reasons why they should have done what they did and reasons why they shouldnt have.

[h00t_h00t]

If a similar broadcast was made in Britain (i.e. Blair's head superimpossed onto a naked body) it would have ended in a lawyer fight, I think it comes under slander or something similar.

[Bob]

MOst kids are in school at that time. And the ones that arent would watch exaclty that type of show.
Most kids are in school that time. And the Ones who aren't will be on that show later in their lives, so its ok anyway.

[Bob]

It's not censorship, censorship comes from the government. In my opinion, it would be a violation of freedom of press if the government said they did have to run the ad. Remember, freedom means not only the freedom to show what you want, but the freedom not to show what you don't want. Whether FOX is controlled by the republicans anyway is another matter... :p

As far as the FCC goes that IS censorship. I think its one of the major things thats wrong with this country. It DOESN'T protect the kids, at least not the 90% with internet access, and what they do and do not censor is ridiculous.

For instance, you can say 'nigger' (imo one of the most vulgar and derogatory words in our language) as many times as you want, but you can't say shit (usually, except for south park, which says it 146 times in one episode.) Its crazy, and its directly against freedom of speech and freedom of press.

[2ndclasscitizen]

It's not censorship, censorship comes from the government
:confused: ah no.

Isn't George W. disrespectful to the office of the president/

[scottie300z]

I agree w/ bob. Those commercials are paid for and the television channels can deny business to anyone they want its not cencorship. if it was, then the tv channels would have to let anybody that wanted to be on.

And yeah i agree that the fcc is cencsorship, but its just too bad you cant do much about it. Same thing w/ the gun laws sort of, they dont let just anyone get a gun. Of course i understand the reasoning behind that as it is very sound and i support them and all, but where do you pick and choose what rights to hold and what rights to violate? do you decide to give crazy people and previous criminals guns just to hold up the principle? In the minds of the fcc they are protecting people from certain things just like the gun laws are as well. Of course i dont agree w/ this but i sorta see where they are coming from, they think they are doing society a service.

[Matra et Alpine]

It's not censorship, censorship comes from the government.
A streange definition of censorship :)

Censhorship is by ANYONE.
TO someone with little power and no influence over media it's called "opinion".
BUT once a group has power to influence control of a media format THEY ascribe the principles of FAIRNESS to then it IS CENSORSHIP.

In my opinion, it would be a violation of freedom of press if the government said they did have to run the ad. Remember, freedom means not only the freedom to show what you want, but the freedom not to show what you don't want. Whether FOX is controlled by the republicans anyway is another matter... :perm THAT is the best twist on the American Constitutino and it's amendments ever.
The "freedom of speech" ONLY ascribes to freedom for the individual to say what they wish without fear of attack. How can that be turned around to freedom to suppress for a media group whos stated purpose is "news" ?
Everyoen is free to NOT say what they dont agree with.
Again, HOW is that then turned in to suppress what they dont agree with for a media group who are hedl up by their advocates as "balanced" ??

As far as the FCC goes that IS censorship. I think its one of the major things thats wrong with this country. It DOESN'T protect the kids, at least not the 90% with internet access, and what they do and do not censor is ridiculous.

For instance, you can say 'nigger' (imo one of the most vulgar and derogatory words in our language) as many times as you want, but you can't say shit (usually, except for south park, which says it 146 times in one episode.) Its crazy, and its directly against freedom of speech and freedom of press.
Yep, tyou can't say shit and you cant have an ad for a gay politician.
Seems liek you concur that FOX are in error :)

[Bob]

No Matra you're right, when one group controls all media and uses it to control the public outlook, that is censorship. But FOX (in principle) is free press, and therefore they can choose what they do and do not want to say. If they find the commercial distasteful, they have full rights to refuse to show it. Of course, we all agree that some of their other programming, ex. Jerry Springer, is as bad as or worse than the commercial, but it is not our place to judge.

Of course we all know FOX is NOT balanced, their 'advocates' are left wing republicans who are glad that FOX follows the party line. But there are democratic biased news sources too, so its not like foxes decision not to run the ad will mean that it is not seen.

As far as my twisting the constitution, in america a corporation is given the same rights and protections as an individual. FOX has the right to maintain a biased view, just as the republicans have the right to say the fox maintains a fair and balanced view.

I found your post a bit confusing, so if my response doesn't make sense I'm a bit sorry.

[Bob]

I use the term censorship to describe governmental suppresion of views that are not concurrent with the governments wishes OR suppression of a media producer by any person or corporation.

You are assuming that fox is presenting their content as unbiased and factual. We both know that its not, and those who think it is are republicans anyway :).

Opinion and censorship are not the same thing. I do not post obscenities and porn on the boards because in my opinion they are vulgar and have no place here. However, if I did and you deleted my post, that would be censorship, because you decided what I could say. In this case, it is fox deciding what fox will say, and therefore opinion, not censorship.

[Matra et Alpine]

No Matra you're right, when one group controls all media and uses it to control the public outlook, that is censorship.
I disagree, when any national media applies opinion to it's NEWS channels then THAT is as much censorship as any other act they may do to manipulate public opinion.
Just because it has another outlet does NOT mean that suppression isnt' censorship.
I think we may have a different view of censorship. Censors are NOT limited to government or "all" in any dictionary or legal system.

But FOX (in principle) is free press, and therefore they can choose what they do and do not want to say. If they find the commercial distasteful, they have full rights to refuse to show it. Of course, we all agree that some of their other programming, ex. Jerry Springer, is as bad as or worse than the commercial, but it is not our place to judge.
Dont have a problem with a 'free' media chosing it's content.
UNLESS that 'media' is a news channel and DOUBLY positions itself and is argued as being the most "balanced". They chose the 'high ground' they're falling from :)
The question in this case should be if the morality of the ad was likely to cause upset or be libelous. It would require a wider analysis of ads they've aired and stopped to determine if their is a bias. Why is a mans upper body is a problem when it appears in every shower gel advert ? Are gay people blocked from all Fox programming and adverrts ? Is any ad suggesting Bush is underperforming or biased banned ? Are all ads suggesting the same for others banned ??

Of course we all know FOX is NOT balanced, their 'advocates' are left wing republicans who are glad that FOX follows the party line. But there are democratic biased news sources too, so its not like foxes decision not to run the ad will mean that it is not seen.
One bias and one censor is a poor excuse foir a NEWS media to be the other. The best aspire to BALANCED view within their content and then they are 'fair'. Using other media bias to support one medias bias is the downfall of any suggestion of being a 'news' channel and moves it to an 'opinion' channel.

As far as my twisting the constitution, in america a corporation is given the same rights and protections as an individual. FOX has the right to maintain a biased view, just as the republicans have the right to say the fox maintains a fair and balanced view.
I see the point on "rights", I was errantly taking the position that as a national news channel that they would be MORALLY required to be balanced. So the freedom to SAY what you want also covered a requirement to report what they didn't too - otherwise it is THEN suppression.
Legally clearly they aren't. Agreed.

I found your post a bit confusing, so if my response doesn't make sense I'm a bit sorry.
The rights comments I woudl concur, but the rest I think you got spot on :D

[Matra et Alpine]

Opinion and censorship are not the same thing. I do not post obscenities and porn on the boards because in my opinion they are vulgar and have no place here. However, if I did and you deleted my post, that would be censorship, because you decided what I could say. In this case, it is fox deciding what fox will say, and therefore opinion, not censorship.
I was positioning opinion and censorship of the SAME group - ie FOX.
So as you said, IF an advertiser placed an ad that FOX didnt' liek then removal of it is censorship.
THe only difference is the advertiser ASKED for it first.

If you ASKED to post porn and were told not to, THAT is still censorship.
If you look at how the film industry handles censorship that is exactly what happens there. You ask, make changes, ask again.
It's all censorign content.

[Bob]

You're right, I agree now, my mistake was I was assuming that we were talking about Fox's main channel, which is very little of a news channel and does not present itself as fair and balanced. After rereading the original post, Fox News, a separate channel, is 24/7 news and supposedly unbiased.

But I think you agree it is within their legal rights to refuse the commercial, it just may not be morally right.

[Matra et Alpine]

But I think you agree it is within their legal rights to refuse the commercial, it just may not be morally right.
yes.
Whether the FCC should ALLOW a TV channel to call itself a NEWS Channel perhaps is the issue :)

It's like a brothel advertising as a "Sports and health centre" :D

[Bob]

I'd like to reply, but I have to go visit the sports and health center now.

[Matra et Alpine]

:D class, Bob :D