Re: [1st amend] NYT: MTV refuses antiwar commercial

[Tyler Durden]

Yeah, despite the probable issues, I want to see big-breasted, bikini-clad 
springbreak chics on MTV while smokin' a doobie, not be all harshed-out by 
"reality". I WANT MY MT-V!

-TD






From: Sunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [1st amend] NYT: MTV  refuses antiwar commercial Date: Mon, 17 
Mar 2003 08:38:25 -0500 (est)

As deplorable and heinous as MTV's actions are, go back and read the 1st
Ammendment.  MTV is not a government run channel.  The 1st doesn't apply
to it.
Now - if say Fox News - who claims to be "Fair and Balanced" refused it,
while accepting - say US Army/Navy/Marines ads, etc. that might be an
interesting development.  But it still wouldn't fall under the 1st.
--Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---
 + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\
  \|/  :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\
<--*-->:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you   \/|\/
  /|\  :their failures, we  |don't email them, or put them on a web  \|/
 + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net 
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote:

> What are the issues when media doesn't take ads?
>
> Private media (e.g., a newspaper, a web site) can't be compelled to say,
> or not say, anything by the state,
> and so can freely exercise arbitrary editorial control over adverts.
>
> What about when the medium is a State-granted monopoly of a resource
> like RF spectrum?
> Or cable infrastructure?Should *these* media channels be *compelled*
> to accept any privately-funded ads, first come first served, *because*
> of this State-granted monopoly?
>
>
> MTV  refuses antiwar commercial
> 
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/business/media/13ADCO.html?ex=1048573024&ei=1&en=292aa6fe6f1edbc8


_
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: [1st amend] NYT: MTV refuses antiwar commercial

[Sunder]

As deplorable and heinous as MTV's actions are, go back and read the 1st
Ammendment.  MTV is not a government run channel.  The 1st doesn't apply
to it.

Now - if say Fox News - who claims to be "Fair and Balanced" refused it,
while accepting - say US Army/Navy/Marines ads, etc. that might be an
interesting development.  But it still wouldn't fall under the 1st.


--Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---
 + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\
  \|/  :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\
<--*-->:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you   \/|\/
  /|\  :their failures, we  |don't email them, or put them on a web  \|/
 + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net 

On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote:

> What are the issues when media doesn't take ads?
> 
> Private media (e.g., a newspaper, a web site) can't be compelled to say,
> or not say, anything by the state,
> and so can freely exercise arbitrary editorial control over adverts.
> 
> What about when the medium is a State-granted monopoly of a resource
> like RF spectrum?
> Or cable infrastructure?Should *these* media channels be *compelled*
> to accept any privately-funded ads, first come first served, *because*
> of this State-granted monopoly?
> 
> 
> MTV  refuses antiwar commercial
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/business/media/13ADCO.html?ex=1048573024&ei=1&en=292aa6fe6f1edbc8

Re: [1st amend] NYT: MTV refuses antiwar commercial

[Ryan Lackey]

The official reason MTV rejects "issues based" ads is that they want
to prevent the "rich" from buying up lots of airtime.  Assume the
average MTV viewer is younger and lefter than the average organiztion
with a lot of money, and it makes some sense.

I think their policy should be money on wood gets you 30 seconds on
the air, within technical parameters .  However, a policy of "no
issues based ads", if it makes viewers happier by preventing
organizations opposed to the average MTV viewer from buying time,
seems like a good commercial decision.  To be consistent, they should
really be rejecting the anti-drug PSAs, though, but that's too easy a
source of non-cash revenue to give up.  If I were a TV producer, I
would absolutely demand no PSAs run during my show.

(I looked into this when the spoof "drugs fund terrorism?  then
legalize drugs" ads were prepared and didn't get to air as widely as
would be good.)

http://www.mpp.org/WarOnDrugCzar/commercials/index.html

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n015/a06.html (MTV, anti-drug ads)

(I don't like marijuana, personally.  I dislike the government more,
but I think if one is going to smoke a politician, .300winmag is
better than a bong...your lungs and fellow citizens will thank you)

-- 
Ryan Lackey [RL960-RIPE AS24812]   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   +1 202 258 9251
OpenPGP DH 4096: B8B8 3D95 F940 9760 C64B   DE90 07AD BE07 D2E0 301F

Re: [1st amend] NYT: MTV refuses antiwar commercial

[Harmon Seaver]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:25:20PM -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
> Best part is here: 
> 
> http://www.mtv.com/bands/i/iraq/news_feature_031203/index5.jhtml
> 
> where Blix says that he doesn't fear Iraq as much as he fears "global
> warming", whatever that is.
> 

   Guess I'd have to agree with him on that point alone -- I definitely feel
1000x more threatened by global warming that I do by Saddam Hussein. Or Osama
bin Laden, for that matter. And I feel more threateded by Dubbya, Asscruft, et
al, than any of the above. 



-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

Re: [1st amend] NYT: MTV refuses antiwar commercial

[Anonymous]

People need to start taking out their towers. Easiest way to fix broadcast
towers is to wait until just before a lightening storm and then cut the big
grounding cables. 

Re: [1st amend] NYT: MTV refuses antiwar commercial

[R. A. Hettinga]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

At 6:52 PM -0800 on 3/14/03, Major Variola (ret) wrote:


> MTV  refuses antiwar commercial

That's okay, they ran one anyway:

http://www.mtv.com/bands/i/iraq/news_feature_031203/index.jhtml

Best part is here: 

http://www.mtv.com/bands/i/iraq/news_feature_031203/index5.jhtml

where Blix says that he doesn't fear Iraq as much as he fears "global
warming", whatever that is.

Cheers,
RAH
Besides the existence of "global warming", most MTV viewers also
believe that the president, Josiah Bartlett, an economics Nobel
winner, conspired with his wife withhold his medical records to hide
his currently-remissive multiple sclerosis, in order to get elected
and save the planet from "capitalism", whatever that is, and the
Republican Party...

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBPnKc08PxH8jf3ohaEQLECQCfbXOGJqvE48MkGlV/HiiDN/FX7P0An1rw
xlebPxAofDnDbI+VhTtdMPEm
=KpVN
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'