Ad Renews Charges of Bush-Saudi Ties

Washington Post ^ | Friday, September 24, 2004; Page A07 | Kurtz

[ironman]

She [Vice President Dianne Brandi] also turned down the latest spot from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth because it "accuses Kerry of treason, a crime punishable by death."

[Republic]

It was horrific what kerry did and what the press lauded him for back then.

The truth is the TRUTH.

And it should be reported.

[GoLightly]

When the charges are brought before a court, both sides get to present their side of the case. There may be unknown exculpatory evidence that is not knowable by someone without both access & clearance. We've seen a portion of redacted released FBI docs, but we have no idea if there are some more which have current national security implication...

There has been a lot of things being tossed about implying treason by George Bush & people in his administration long before the recounts began. Thing is, in this instance, there quite a bit of proof to back up the implications.

I'm not going to get into speculation about a VLWC, cuz I think most of the travelers (if not all) just act like commies cuz it's a natural progression from the kind of elitist thinking prevalent in even the dumbest representatives on the left.

[Marysecretary]

Yes, the word's gotten out several times on the news programs. I wouldn't sweat it.

[Marysecretary]

He keeps telling us, ad nauseum, that he is independent, not conservative. It's beginning to show more and more. And I watch him less and less.

[keats5]

Who cares if FOX rejects the ad. They still show it repeatedly as part of their news coverage.

[ThomasMore]

She [Vice President Dianne Brandi] also turned down the latest spot from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth because it "accuses Kerry of treason, a crime punishable by death."

Is it or is it not the truth? The man is a traitor. He's just been protected from paying the penalties by friends in high places.

[Chaguito]

Thank you.

[ironman]

"Ad Renews Charges of Bush-Saudi Ties"

If I used that, would anybody have any clue about the Swift Vet angle and FoxNews? I added the rejection of the attack ad on Bush in my comment. I've been around here for 5+ years, have posted quite a few articles, and my title is accurate so ease up, ok.

[ironman]

That is why I posted this snipet. If FoxNews rejects it, it may be harder for the Swift Vets to get it aired on other outlets.

[JLO]

"Fox viewers don't need to see the Swifties ad. Let the MSM viewers take a look."

===
Trouble is, I heard John O'Neill say that the ads were only targeted to play on cable channels. No one who needs to see it will now. MSM doesn't cover in their 'news' segments the newest Swift Boat ad like they did the first one. That's my very limited channel-changing MSM news to see if it is covered anywhere. I haven't seen anything, but maybe I've missed it. Disheartening to say the least. This latest ad is EXPLOSIVE.

[Sprite518]

Are you saying the add is not factual? Its only rhetoric if its not true. This is what John Kerry did. The truth may hurt, but it needs to be said.

[HenryLeeII]

I don't think that they Swifty ads accuse Kerry of treason, but of betrayal. There is a difference.

Exactly. I saw John O'Neill on Hannity & Colmes a few nights ago and Colmes kept pressing him to openly accuse Kerry of treason. Mr. O'Neill refused to do so, saying he didn't want to get into a discussion regarding legalities. He stuck to the 'betrayal' charge, which is great because its exactly what al-Gore accused our president of!

[nutmeg]

FoxFan ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.

[etradervic]

The CEO of Fox Group has come out as a backer of Kerry. I wonder if that is influencing the fence-sitting of O'Reilly and this decision.
The fact that a media CEO would express partisan bias like that is a reprehensible practice.

[arbee4bush]

I agree. I think they are hoping to pick up some of CBS's cast-offs and so are tilting a bit to the left to make them feel more welcome.

[Radix]

I agree with John O'Neill!!!!

Really. They are inviting Kerry to sue but he won't.

REASON: The truth is all the defense that the Swifties actually require. Kerry will never sue, and therefore this business with FOX not running the ads is curious.

[Dont Mention the War]

Just for discussions sake, what if all the networks refused to air Nader adds for whatever reason? Do they legally have to have a reason? Saying this is a hypothetical that would never occur dodges the principal. I'm not a lawyer but it seems like something is wrong here.

Broadcast outlets - that is, TV and radio stations - are required by federal law to accept and run any ads submitted by a candidate's own campaign if the candidate is running for federal office, regardless of the ad's content. If the Kerry campaign wanted to put an ad on the air making completely false allegations about Bush's personal life, stations must take it even if the the allegations are provably wrong on their face. It would be up to Bush to sue the Kerry camp for slander.

However, FNC is not a broadcast outlet, and the Swifties are not a candidate. Either reason is more than enough for FNC to say no.

I don't know whether or not FNC would be theoretically liable for airing a clearly slanderous political ad, since they're not required by law to accept it no matter what. In any event, they are free to reject any ad they want purely on grounds of taste, if they so desire.

[ml1954]

Broadcast outlets - that is, TV and radio stations - are required by federal law to accept and run any ads submitted by a candidate's own campaign if the candidate is running for federal office, regardless of the ad's content. If the Kerry campaign wanted to put an ad on the air making completely false allegations about Bush's personal life, stations must take it even if the the allegations are provably wrong on their face. It would be up to Bush to sue the Kerry camp for slander.

However, FNC is not a broadcast outlet, and the Swifties are not a candidate. Either reason is more than enough for FNC to say no.

I don't know whether or not FNC would be theoretically liable for airing a clearly slanderous political ad, since they're not required by law to accept it no matter what. In any event, they are free to reject any ad they want purely on grounds of taste, if they so desire.

I assume what you say is correct. But something still seems wrong to me. The system seems rigged. I think our Founding Fathers may be rolling over in their grave. I am constantly surprised by the restrictions placed on so the so called free market and so called free speech. Apparently, Freedom of the Press only applies if you OWN a 'press'.

[ReignOfError]

My husband and I were surprised to see CNN ads on Fox News. What's up with that?

There are two kinds of ads on cable networks -- those sold by the network and the cheaper ads sold by the local cable provider. CNN, Fox and MSNBC -- along with other non-news cable networks -- make local buys on each other's stations.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!