I'm not surprised that CBS didn't air the advert. I'm surprised that MoveOn ever imagined that they would. To do so would clearly have been aligning themselves against George Bush, it would not have been a neutral act, a mere facilitation of free speech. It would have been an endorsement of the views expressed in the advert, because there is no possible justification for airing it. Why should they air it? Free speech is free speech, but it's their network.
I would see a parallel with the Kilroy discussion. The Sun etc tried to distort that situation by accusing the BBC of restricting free speech, when in fact they were quite reasonably holding an employee accountable. In this situation, people are expecting CBS to embroil themselves in a debate which they have no desire to get involved in, and accusing them of restricting free speech by not promoting the views of this particular organisation. This of course depends on your view of what responsibilities corporations have in relation to encouraging free speech. I personally think it's their prerogative.
My judgement about this situation is largely based on my view of the advert itself though. It's a piece of manipulative tripe. I dislike it for the same reason that I disliked the Barnados advertising campaign featuring pictures of babies with bottles of paraffin/cockroaches stuck in their mouths. Granted, the latter is far worse, but it's still the same principle. It's using emotive images to try and sway a situation which should be governed by informed debate.
Don't get me wrong, I doubt I would support CBS generally, and I certainly don't support Bush, but that doesn't mean that any form of political criticism directed towards him is appropriate for any context. For one thing, I doubt people watching the superbowl want to have this sort of thing shoved in their faces. I wouldn't. Mind you, I wouldn't want to see most of the advertising that would shown.
I'm not sure the safe sex/drugs adverts are a fair comparison. They may be ideologically charged, but isn't there a case for saying that there is a positive agenda, a useful purpose to them? I don't know, you tell me, I haven't seen these adverts. But there is no useful purpose to this anti-Bush advert. Even if you accept the validity of criticising the president in this way, it's hardly likely to rouse people to action, is it? It's more likely to create an atmosphere of paranoia, akin to the "New Labour, New Failure" adverts by the Tories. It's the kind of thing I would expect an opposing political party to do, a kind of "if you vote for this guy, your life will be fucked, so you'd better go for the only alternative instead". Hardly constructive.
That's my view, anyway. |
