January 25th, 2004


Previous Entry Next Entry
03:31 pm - on my losing respect for political organizations and advertising policies...
You know, usually I actually like MoveOn.org. Or at least I respect them. But its really hard for me to continue respecting someone when they are being idiots. And that's what they are being more and more these last few days. So much so that that I am becoming irritated to the point where I must write 1000 words of free flowing hostility:

So, I actually very much liked the winning ad in MoveOn.org’s Bush In 30 Seconds contest. In fact, it was my favorite. In fact, all of the winning ads in all the categories were the ones that I voted for. See, I’m all keyed in that way. I have my fingers on pulse of the nation. I’m all hip and shit, as the kids say. So I actually like MoveOn.org. Or I at least tend to respect them most of the time. But that’s becoming harder and harder as the website acts more and more like FUCKING MORONS!

Ok, for those who don’t know, MoveOn had a contest on the net for someone to produce a 30 second anti-Bush political ad. Then when the contest was over, they had a pledge drive. And then they intended to use that money to buy thirty seconds of SuperBowl commercial airtime. Only they didn’t take into account that CBS might say no. So then they got all pissy about it. Now they keep sending me (well, their entire mailing list) mail asking us to protest because CBS is clearly in bed with the GOP, otherwise they’d air the ad. In the most recent piece of spam, they go so far as to claim that they have a right to air it because the airwaves are public. ARRRGGGHHH!!! That’s not what fucking public airwaves mean! If that were the case, it would be illegal to charge for commercial broadcasts. And they know this.

Anyway, what they don’t seem to understand (or likely do understand but are ignoring because it suits their political agenda to do so) is those parts of the Federal Communication Commission Public Airwaves Act mandates that political broadcasts be given equal airtime. Actually, they do understand this, as they are arguing that CBS intends to air “the Whitehouse ad” while not airing theirs, but as I understand it, “the Whitehouse ad” isn’t actually a campaign spot, but instead an anti-drug thing. Also, they aren’t in direct opposition to the Republicans or Whitehouse (even though they may fancy themselves so) so they don’t necessarily get to benefit from equal time even if the Whitehouse’s ad were a campaign ad. Moreover, technically CBS would be forced to show political ads for a conservative lobbyist group as all. And really, I don’t blame them. If it I were in charge, I’d want no fucking part of any of it. It’s fucking football people! Politics should not be a part of it. Football commercials should either be funny, or they perpetuate the myth that if we go out and get absolutely fucking plastered that we’ll get a shot bedding a couple of well endowed twins. You know, the American dream. MoveOn is also pointing out that CBS is refusing to air PETA’s ad, implying that this is again some vast conspiracy of the conservative media empire. Don’t get me wrong, I like looking at slaughtered foxes and Dominique Swain’s supple naked ass as much as the next guy, but as I said, message has no place in football, unless it’s the message that we can rip peoples heads off, get drunk and fuck twins.

The message here is that liberals are just as fucking annoying about their agendas ass conservatives. Sometimes even more so. At least a gun lovin’, tobaccy chewing maniac knows his place. Heston might have held a gun ralley in Columbine, but he knew damn well not to try to interrupt the Superbowl with that nonsense. Of course, you have to be fair. Charlton Heston is Moses, so he’s all wise and shit.

I guess the reason it really bothers me is that I want to like MoveOn.org. I really did like their ad a whole lot. And hell, if anyone wants to rile the public up against the established administration, then hell, I’m all for it (as a side note, I don’t necessarily mean just the Bush or Republican administrations. I’m all for riling up against the democrats too. I’m all anarchistic and nihilistic and stuff that way. Well, all except Clinton. I liked Clinton. He was all with the cigar smoking, hamburger eating, saxophone playing, pot smoking and blowjobs and stuff, and that’s the kind of president that I can get behind. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to advocate drugs, marital infidelity or saxophone playing or anything else sinful like that, but damn that guy was smooth!). It’s just that I don’t like when people try to get all soapboxy around my football. Tis nothing sacred to you people? Can’t you go and protest your message during something less important but almost as popular like Survivor or the Oscars or the series finale to Friends or something? Hell, if you want to be really ballsy, you can make an anti-Bush commercial to air directly following his next inauguration. I mean, lets just face facts and accept the fact that he’s going to win again. He’s going to be president for four more years. Like it or hate it, doesn’t matter. Learn to live with it, cuz that’s how its going to be. But once we accept it, we can get a jump on all the political smearing in the media. We could be producing anti Bush ads right now! And they’d be ready to air by the time he’s ready to extend his oath of office. Just picture this: January 20th, 2005. MoveOn.org could buy some commercial time for right after the Inaugural speech. Like maybe during the ball or something.Wouldn’t that be fucking awesome? He’d finish up the oath, then he’d go off and utter a few standard empty words of rhetoric about NU-KU-LAR weapons of mass destruction and consequences and repercussions and enduring freedom and TERR-ISTS and Osama and Saddam and don’t mess with Texas and then the screen would fade to black and then the words “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” would just sit on the screen for thirty seconds before fading out? That would rule.

EDIT: Not part of my 1000 words. But really, the PETA ad really is very funny so check it out. Also the 60 second director's cut version...

Current Mood: [mood icon] aggravated

(26 comments | Leave a comment)

 
on my losing respect for political organizations and advertising policies... - graffiti.maverick

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile


Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Elseworld.com
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

Wrestling
> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

Other
> 1KWFFH
> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr

Comments:


[User Picture]From: fizzbang Date: January 25th, 2004 - 12:46 pm (Link)
I don't think I can just give up and think that Bush'll be in for another four years. I'd much rather at least keep fighting against it, nay, railing against the dying of the light. And I'm very fond of MoveOn for fighting against it, too. Of course, I also think they're being idiots if they really thought CBS would air it during the Superbowl.

I believe the original intent was to air it during the State of the union address, but that was nixxed by the networks. Just think of how much ass that would have kicked.
From: (Anonymous) Date: January 25th, 2004 - 01:03 pm (Link)
Do they actually show ads during the state of the union address? (I don't watch TV, except maybe to see the superbowl ads.)

.joe.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: January 25th, 2004 - 01:09 pm (Link)
no they don't... yet another problem with that plan. Besides, they'd have to buy them separately from every network. You could put ads on near the State of the Union address, though.
[User Picture]From: fizzbang Date: January 25th, 2004 - 01:14 pm (Link)
Good point. now that you mention it, I believe the plan was to show them immediately after the SotUA. My brainfart, there.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: January 25th, 2004 - 01:14 pm (Link)
I'm not truly advocating people actually give up protesting or fighting for what they believe in. All the same, I do think Bush is very likely to win in November.

I don't think MoveOn are idiots for thinking they could get the ad played. Most people probably assume that, if they have a gazillion dollars they can just buy Superbowl time. It doesn't occur to people that the network has to be willing to sell to you as well. They're idiots for thinking that they can (or even should be able to) petition CBS into changing its mind. Mike points out that he doesn't think they really do think they can. But its a good way to raise some contribution funds and drum up some press.
[User Picture]From: sui66iy Date: January 25th, 2004 - 02:23 pm (Link)
Also, Mike points out that he thinks your attitude of not voting for people who can win is stupid. But that's a separate argument ;-)
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: January 25th, 2004 - 02:39 pm (Link)
yeah, that is a separate argument. But actually, the ability to win is not the reason I actually don't vote for people. Its just an incidental truth that sounds funnier than the real reason. The real reason is I refuse to vote for someone just because they CAN win, which is what 98% of the electorate did last time. In an ideal world, I think people should vote for the candidate that they want because he matches their politics as opposed to voting for "anyone but Bush" as theadana said. My voting for 3rd party candidates is actually a compromise. My intent is that one day there would be a three party or even four party system where people would be able to vote for realistic candidates that matched their politics instead of saying "oh, that guy is gonna make abortion illegal, so I guess I have to vote for the guy who will raise taxes just to keep that from happening".
[User Picture]From: thwomp Date: January 25th, 2004 - 05:09 pm (Link)
I split the difference on this one last time and nader traded with safya's mom in NY. Which I thought worked out pretty well. Except that Gore lost. Except that he won the popular vote. Really, that whole election just blew chunks.
[User Picture]From: dariaphoebe Date: January 25th, 2004 - 07:16 pm (Link)
"oh, that guy is gonna make abortion illegal, so I guess I have to vote for the guy who will raise taxes just to keep that from happening".

The one issue voters really piss me off.

I think the one issue that matters should be music. Clark said his favorite album is "Journey's Greatest Hits". In the interest of keeping the Whitehouse untainted by crappy music I must vote for Clark, to the exclusion of anyone whose musical tastes I disagree with, even if he'd flush the country otherwise.

(Disregard that Clark is one of those most closely compatible with my views)
From: (Anonymous) Date: January 25th, 2004 - 01:01 pm (Link)
OK, so I believe that:
(1) "equal time" does not apply in this case (see page 25 of this PDF (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/pubintadvcom/piacreport.pdf))
(2) both the MoveOn and PETA ads are good
(3) CBS is entitled not to show the ads at its discretion
(4) MoveOn is being rather shrill about the whole thing
(5) it is worth talking about, because the super bowl is as much (if not more) about the ads as the game, for many people
(6) it's a damn shame, but that's just the way it is

.joe.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: January 25th, 2004 - 01:06 pm (Link)
(1) "equal time" does not apply in this case (see page 25 of this PDF)

No, it doesn't apply at all. I was trying to say that, but I'm not sure it came across what with all my random ranting.

(2) both the MoveOn and PETA ads are good

yes, very much so. I also liked a couple of MoveOn's other ad. The animated Bush one in particular.

(3) CBS is entitled not to show the ads at its discretion

exactly...

(4) MoveOn is being rather shrill about the whole thing

yeah, that's kinda the thing that I was mostly annoyed with. They implication that they have a god given right to show the ads that is being denied them by the conservative media, and that isn't the case.
[User Picture]From: cuddlyd00m Date: January 25th, 2004 - 01:59 pm (Link)
yeah, that's kinda the thing that I was mostly annoyed with. They implication that they have a god given right to show the ads that is being denied them by the conservative media, and that isn't the case.

It actually reminds me rather a lot of situations where Hollywood stars complain about their precious 1st Amendment right to free speech when someone declares that they're going to boycott a movie. Free speech doesn't mean we have to pay to watch your sorry ass. Just means you can say what you want, as long as you don't threaten anyone.

Speaking of that, why the hell are actors supposedly so knowledgable about politics? Just shut up and act, damnit.
[User Picture]From: jameel Date: January 26th, 2004 - 07:59 am (Link)
Well, they can do ads for drugs and liquor, too. I mean, stick with what you know, right?

Hee hee! Your picture is the SARS....
[User Picture]From: marmal8 Date: January 25th, 2004 - 01:26 pm (Link)
I wonder what costs more - 30 seconds of SuperBowl airtime or 30 minutes of prime time airtime to show them all?
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: January 25th, 2004 - 02:00 pm (Link)
that's kind of a hard question to answer. There are a couple issues. First off, TV show time doesn't usually work like ad time. Networks buy a show. Not the other way around. Whereas advertisers buy airtime for their ads. And it varies wildly by network and timeslot. That's what ratings are all about. A 30 second spot during the Superbowl costs aboutl $1.6million. A 30 second spot during a random episode of Friends (the highest cost regular show) costs $473,500. A 30 second spot during a regular episode of Monday Night Football (the tenth highest cost regular show) is only $272,867 (there is a chart here. Generally, its very hard to buy national primetime on broadcast network television. There just isn't any for sale. If you figure even the lowest rated primetime TV show can demand $100K for an ad, and with roughly 15 ad spots in your 30 min show, that's $1.5 million right there. I've heard the number $100,000 mentioned before as a cost for a cable infomercial spot, but I couldn't find any evidence in my quick web search just now. And keep in mind that not only would be on cable, but wouldn't be during primetime. I do know however that a wrestling organization is in negotiations to get a 10AM Saturday timeslot on WGN for ~$50K for the hour. But that would be with the understanding that they were contractually bound to pay for like an entire year's (or two's) worth of time, and not just a one time thing.
[User Picture]From: marmal8 Date: January 25th, 2004 - 04:06 pm (Link)
I was just having thoughts of those "world's funniest commercials" shows that appear in the lineup when something gets cancelled midseason and nothing new was picked up.
Anyway, your research seems to imply that MoveOn could buy a whole lot more commercial airtime in other places, given the respective parties are willing to sell. Now, while I realize that savvy intellectuals such as yourself watch the SuperBowl, you also no doubt watch many other commercially enhanced shows and regular old Monday Night Football. There is the potential to reach/offend a much larger audience which includes people like me who go out of their way to not watch the StuporBowl.
Of course, I already think Bush is a moron and have spent the better part of today watching the various Bushin30seconds commercials so whatever.
[User Picture]From: bogosort Date: January 25th, 2004 - 05:53 pm (Link)
But you have to ask yourself. What's really more effective? A 30 second slot in the middle of the Super Bowl that get the vast quantity of sports fans and commercial watchers, or a 30 minute prime time slot that only people who already believe in the particular cause would watch.

Still, I think CBS made the right decision not to take a political stand. People want to watch football/commercials/hang out with friends who are doing so. They don't want to get dragged into political arguments. The Super Bowl is probably the epitome entertainment media in the US, and as such should avoid any sorts of political adgendas.
[User Picture]From: marmal8 Date: January 25th, 2004 - 06:26 pm (Link)
The Super Bowl is probably the epitome entertainment media in the US

...a sad, sad statement on our national mentality...

and as such should avoid any sorts of political adgendas.

What if I say that it has a responsibility to do so, since it affects so many? It's just an opinion. I say, bring it. I'd rather have a political argument than a which-team-is-better argument or a you-double-dipped-in-the-guacamole argument.

I can't necessarily say that I believe CBS has avoided taking a political stand here. There is a particular stand that they are not taking, but that could be for any of a number of reasons. All action has a theory or stance behind it. What that stance is...that is the question.
[User Picture]From: bogosort Date: January 25th, 2004 - 07:32 pm (Link)
I never said anything good or bad regarding the Super Bowl at all, just merely a simple statement that it's the embodiment of American mass media. If you don't like the Super Bowl, no one's forcing you to watch it. Last I checked, we still do have that freedom. If you prefer to have nice structured political discussions, then you should watch programming that is geared to such self proclaimed intellectuals as yourself.

I'm not a representive of CBS, nor do I make any claims about knowing any more about this particular story except what I've seen in here. But the facts seem to be that CBS is refusing to air campaign ads for any party. The ad that came from the White House represents an anti-drug stance, which from my knowledge has little to do with the campaign. Thus far the facts don't seem to imply any sort of partisan bias. And yet if I think about it some more, I realize that there are many parties involved in the Super Bowl. There's CBS, the NFL, the players, the media, the advertisers, and the corporate sponsers of the event(who also happen to advertise usually). Now I'm going to go out on a limb, but I'd wager that not all of these parties have the same political agendas. Their purpose is to entertain the masses what want to be entertained, not to attempt to shovel mass market political sentiment in equal amounts to consumers. I don't want to see political adgends randomly placed in a theatrical production, symphony, ballet, or whatnot. Why must should the Super Bowl be any different?
[User Picture]From: marmal8 Date: January 25th, 2004 - 07:41 pm (Link)
Take a chill pill. There is no need to start making ad hominem attacks on people you don't know. I did not attack you for your opinions. Unless of course, stating my own opinion is considered an attack on you as a person. Which it isn't.
[User Picture]From: bogosort Date: January 25th, 2004 - 07:57 pm (Link)
Please don't take my statements as an attack on your character. I honestly would never intentionally lower myself to using such petty forms of argument in decent company. I was merely stating my case for why I disagree with your assertion that the Super Bowl has a responsibility to be politcal in nature. Granted I do tend to get a bit long winded in my own arguments, but I figure that if I state particular points, and what supports those points, others are given a better insight into the side that I'm arguing, so that they are better equipped to convince me otherwise. Then again, I suppose that going more in depth about my own opinions could be construed as an attack on your character, to which I must formally apologize for inadvertantly caused.
[User Picture]From: beststephi Date: January 25th, 2004 - 02:12 pm (Link)
1) MoveOn should make a pro-drug ad, with the story of how a drug-using Texan rose to lead the greatest nation on earth.

2) According to a Newsweek poll I saw on the news last night, Kerry was up something like 49% to 41% over Bush. So if this is accurate and stays stable, you're right, Bush will win ;-). I hope the perception that Bush will win will help motivate people to get out and vote against him.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: January 25th, 2004 - 02:26 pm (Link)
well, polls are always weird. Particularly right now, where Kerry is actively campaigning and Bush isn't. Keep in mind, its not even clear that Kerry can beat Dean, much less Bush.
[User Picture]From: sui66iy Date: January 25th, 2004 - 02:26 pm (Link)

Mixing Football and Politics

Did you notice Tom Brady at the State of the Union address? I was going to root for the Patriots, but now I think I won't...
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: January 25th, 2004 - 02:34 pm (Link)

Re: Mixing Football and Politics

well, I was rooting against the Patriots anyway. For one, I don't really like them. Second, Carolina has He Hate Me playing for them.
[User Picture]From: wonkybutt Date: January 25th, 2004 - 10:16 pm (Link)
Superbowl is going for 2.6M/30seconds. The final episode of Friends is going for 2M/30sec.

All of the crap coming out of Fenton Communications has really been pissing me off. I keep calling them to give them a piece of my mind, but Roberto won't take my calls. He's scared.
 

• Go to Top
LiveJournal.com