Insurance Agent Forum

[Markingriffin]

ABC and NBC Refuse to Run Ad Critical of Obama Health Care

ABC and NBC have refused to run a national ad critical of President Obama's health care reform plan. The commercial features a doctor who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to rationing and will disproportionately harm the quality of care for seniors on Medicare.

The spot has been running for two weeks on local affiliates of Fox, CBS and even ABC and NBC. But the two networks have refused to air the commercial nationally, according to Fox News.


http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/28/abc-and-nbc-refuse-to-run-ad-critical-of-obama-health-care/?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl1|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsdaily.com% 2F2009%2F08%2F28%2Fabc-and-nbc-refuse-to-run-ad-critical-of-obama-health-care%2F

[atlantainsguy]

Considering the story itself came from Ruppert Murdock's "fair and balanced" Fox News, that could account for a reputable network's reluctance to run an ad that could be of "questionable origin" to begin with.

Who is the League of American Voters who produced the ad? They apparently have a dog in this hunt. They are more than likely another right-wing front group -- funded by the insurance, pharma, and/or hospital industry, through one of the pr/lobby firms they hire and spend $1,500,000 a day through to buy congressional votes, and make stuff up.

Attached story from PoliticsDaily, a right-wing paper, says the ad "presents a partisan position", and that some of the ad's "factual claims" are being verified. At least they are reporting with a modicum of truth. Any reputable network will verify sources first -- unless it's Fox/Fix News.

I see Dick Morris is connected to the League of American Voters, which is another red flag in favor withholding judgement until the full story is known. Ever since his falling out with the Clintons, he's become a real "Darth Vader" type.

Nice try, neo-cons -- but just another dump truck load of over-biased BS. Joseph Gobbels would be proud of how far the propaganda machine has evolved since Karl Rove took over.

Atlantainsguy

[Winter]

Originally Posted by atlantainsguy

Attached story from PoliticsDaily, a right-wing paper, says the ad "presents a partisan position", and that some of the ad's "factual claims" are being verified. At least they are reporting with a modicum of truth. Any reputable network will verify sources first -- unless it's Fox/Fix News.

Atlantainsguy

Keep in mind that there was not a single, solitary mainstream network or newspaper that was willing to report the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter story. The only paper that reported it was the National Enquirer who reported it months before it was confirmed and they turned out to be 100% correct. The National Enquirer is of course a trash tabloid. Such is the state of American journalism where the public has to decide between mainstream lib media that absolutely will not touch a negative story about democrats or go with a tabloid that may or may not have a grain of truth embedded.

It is probably all for the good anyway. People are leaving those networks in droves to get their news elsewhere because of liberal or government ownership or their shops. (ABC reports on health reform from the White House, hehehe). That is fine. Just let the free market play out and watch Fox's rating go up. Then watch Obama continue to denigrate Fox all while the heartland is becoming its viewership. Not working out so well is it Barry. Tell us again that Fox viewers are just an angry mob that cant think for themselves.

[al3]

Originally Posted by Winter

Keep in mind that there was not a single, solitary mainstream network or newspaper that was willing to report the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter story. .

Aren't the networks private enterprises? Do they get the right to run the stories AND the ads they want to run?

Or maybe you would be in favor of government regulations that say they have to run anything that anyone brings them... story, adv., whatever? Do you neo-cons really want to see MORE regulation of the media? I know I don't.

I've been in and around journalism all my life. Understand one thing. The "news" is nothing more than a vehicle to sell advertising. Same with music on the radio and same with all entertainment in every free or almost free media.

The news departments make a big deal about the "sanctity" of the "story"... but at the end of the day, if the drug companies, car companies, and food companies decide not to buy advertising for the network news shows, they will disappear in a New York minute.

It's all about the money. That's something you folks here should be very familiar with.

Al

[Rivers1]

Originally Posted by al3

government regulations...

Hmmmm...

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet | Politics and Law - CNET News

[bobson]

Originally Posted by al3

Aren't the networks private enterprises? Do they get the right to run the stories AND the ads they want to run?

Or maybe you would be in favor of government regulations that say they have to run anything that anyone brings them... story, adv., whatever? Do you neo-cons really want to see MORE regulation of the media? I know I don't.

I've been in and around journalism all my life. Understand one thing. The "news" is nothing more than a vehicle to sell advertising. Same with music on the radio and same with all entertainment in every free or almost free media.

The news departments make a big deal about the "sanctity" of the "story"... but at the end of the day, if the drug companies, car companies, and food companies decide not to buy advertising for the network news shows, they will disappear in a New York minute.

It's all about the money. That's something you folks here should be very familiar with.

Al

NBC is not a private enterprise. It is a shill, an advertising arm, for General Electric and nothing else. GE stands to earn billions of dollars if Obama has his way. Hence NBC is a giant plug for Obama and his people.

Don't ever call NBC a news organization.

[Mr. Bill]

Let's also not forget that Jeff Immelt is on the board of the New York Federal Reserve, which is also not a government organization.

[CHUMPS FROM OXFORD]

Fox has not agreed to run the ads yet. I don't know about CNN. Speaking of CNN...they have actually become a little more fair and balanced in the last 3-6 months. I'm not sure why. CNBC is still a joke...except for Joe S.

Here's an odd one:

A class of 10th graders was asked (in SW Ohio) what TV News Network they trust most.

Fox 15
CNN 4
ABC 2
CBS 1

Of course...I assume their parents have a lot to do with those numbers.

[deg929]

I have got to say that I am getting REALLY tired of this whole neo-con thing.......Atlanta & Al, you need to stop accusing everyone of being a neo-con, and all right wing, and caring about nothing but the money.

I happen to be a Conservative, and I am very pleased to say that the reality is that that is the foundation on which this country was built.

I have a wonderful family, and I do my very best to keep them from being overexposed to all of the crap that comes through so much of the liberal media that we have in this country. Al, the networks do have an obligation, as long as they are doing what they do under the guise of bringing us the truth, to be as fair and impartial as possible, and if it weren't for organizations like Fox News, there wouldn't be anything to offset all of the overly slanted crap that comes from the Left. The truth is that Fox News may very well slant too far to the Right side occasionally, but it's like putting an elephant and an ant on opposite ends of a teeter-totter.

Just stop with the whole name-calling about groups of people that you don't even know........we are not all neo-cons.

[healthagent]

Liberalism works great - just ask California.

[al3]

Originally Posted by deg929

I Al, the networks do have an obligation, as long as they are doing what they do under the guise of bringing us the truth, to be as fair and impartial as possible,

Um... you say the above... why? I've been a writer for just over 40 years now. I own a small publishing company (adams-blake.com) and I've got more than a few credits to my name. Explain to me why you believe in your heart of hearts that the networks (including your sainted FoxNews) has a legal, moral, and/or ethical obligation to be "fair and balanced."

I would grant you the argument if you were talking about PBS and NPR, but I don't think there is a neo-con in the country who has ever watched or listened to either.

and if it weren't for organizations like Fox News, there wouldn't be anything to offset all of the overly slanted crap that comes from the Left.

But I don't understand. ALL of the major news organizations and networks are owned by huge corporations. And we all know that private enterprise, especially mega-international corporations are very conservative. So explain to me why you believe the huge networks that are owned by multi-national corporations are "tools" for the liberal left? And all of these corps. take huge payments in advertising from mega-conservative entities... drug companies, car companies, and food companies.

Where you see the so-called "liberal bias" in the major networks is beyond me.... probably because what you say is only true in your own mind.

Al

[Patriot]

Originally Posted by deg929

Just stop with the whole name-calling about groups of people that you don't even know........we are not all neo-cons.

Don't let the name-calling bother you (sticks and stones...), it's just a radical bully-tactic, in reality it amounts to NOTHING. Just stick with the facts, that's hard enough. If they get the so-called "fairness doctrine" back-doored, the facts won't matter. Just let the free market decide - workin' fine in talk radio, and pickin' up speed on "TV".

[bobson]

Originally Posted by al3

But I don't understand. ALL of the major news organizations and networks are owned by huge corporations. And we all know that private enterprise, especially mega-international corporations are very conservative. So explain to me why you believe the huge networks that are owned by multi-national corporations are "tools" for the liberal left? And all of these corps. take huge payments in advertising from mega-conservative entities... drug companies, car companies, and food companies.

Where you see the so-called "liberal bias" in the major networks is beyond me.... probably because what you say is only true in your own mind.

Al

Meganational corporations are so far from 'very conservative' it is laughable. Meganational coporations love heavy regulation. The heavier the better.

You can bet Monsanto would love it if all farmers market sellers had to have their gardens inspected by the USDA. The piles of paperwork would force all of them out of business. These meganational corporations use the government to put their competition out of business.

Drug companies love the FDA. The drug companies love to be able to push vitanutrient sellers around. Ever read the label on a bottle of viatmin C. 'This product is not intended to cure anything.' Ever heard of scurvey? Do you think GNC can tell customers that vitamin C cures scurvey?

Car companies? You mean Obamamotors? You don't think they enjoyed the huge baliout by our President?


Try again.

[ABC]

Al & Atlanta I think you two are the same person.

Now it makes sense AL. You are a publisher that is why you are able to articulate so well. Looks like you are a failure in the publishing industry so you decided to sell health insurance.

You have failed at the publishing industry so I would bet you might be having a hard time selling health.



Why are you on this forum?

At this point I have seen you add very little from a sales standpoint. I really don't think you know the products you sell.

So do you come to this forum to learn how to sell?

[al3]

Originally Posted by ABC

Why are you on this forum?

So do you come to this forum to learn how to sell?

Of course not. The only reason I'm here is to harass assholes like you.

[GreenSky]

Originally Posted by al3

Of course not. The only reason I'm here is to harass assholes like you.

Damn it Al. Now I have to pay off the bet I made with several people on the forum. I told them that you actually had some insurance information to add.

Rick

[al3]

Originally Posted by GreenSky

Damn it Al. Now I have to pay off the bet I made with several people on the forum. I told them that you actually had some insurance information to add.

Rick

How could YOU of all people make that bet? You know I don't know a damn thing about this business and that I'm only here to beat the crap out of neo-cons (who must enjoy it because they keep coming back for more!)

I hope you lost a LOT of money (not that you can't afford it!)

Al

[Charpress]

"PRAVDA"

One of the biggest ironies of all time was the name of Russia's state-run newspaper which in English is: "TRUTH".

Pravda was full daily of every negative AP story about the U.S. and never said a thing about the USSR's own problems. They had no crime, and everyone was happy. That was the daily line. The U.S., on the other hand, was full of racists, money grubbers, serial killers, greed, drug abuse, etc. etc. etc.

Sound at all familiar? Maybe getting more and more familiar?

[al3]

Originally Posted by Charpress

"PRAVDA"

One of the biggest ironies of all time was the name of Russia's state-run newspaper which in English is: "TRUTH".

Pravda was full daily of every negative AP story about the U.S. and never said a thing about the USSR's own problems. They had no crime, and everyone was happy. That was the daily line. The U.S., on the other hand, was full of racists, money grubbers, serial killers, greed, drug abuse, etc. etc. etc.

Sound at all familiar? Maybe getting more and more familiar?

When I toured the Soviet Union in 1984 on a State Dept. art-exchange our Russian guide who was not a fan of the Communist government (even though she worked for it) said that Pravada meant "truth" and Isvestia, the other state paper meant "news" in Russian but it was boring as hell and never reported anything of consequence.

She said "In Soviet Union there is no news in the truth and no truth in the news."

True story. (Great trip... saw all the art the Soviet had to show, especially the Hermitage.)

Al

[Charpress]

I have been itching to see Russia starting with Saint Petersburg.

What goes around comes around. In Russia it was reinstating the name of a great man and taking out the name of a psychotic whose very existence led to the deaths of scores of millions. Ain't history a funny thing?