My understanding is that only CNN has aired any of the ads.
BCL - this is truly an interesting issue - the degree to which a broadcaster is obligated to sell space which, effectively, seeks to put the broadcaster out of business.
Adbusters basically is an anti-consumerism group, and as I understand, the ads seek to "expose" advertising.. which, as one might expect, wouldn't endeer the broadcaster to their clients, being the advertising industry.
Equally interesting is the issue of the difference between CBC (public) and CanWest (privae) - and whether the over-riding control by the CRTC makes all of them, in a sense, a "public" body, and as such, perhaps obligated to assure the right of free expression.
I'll be curious to see just how our Judiciary manages to screw this up.
Very cool. . . . we can force CBC to run ads ridiculing the commie loving Obama sucking hippie global warming blathering bias it has and that it only costs us poor taxpayers $1.25 Billion dollars a year for their useless drivel !!
Now that's an Ad busters's campaign we can all support.
Next . . . we'll go after the Islamofascist loving community newspapers and force them to run pro Israel Ads.
Lastly, we'll force the Toronto Liberal Star rag to run Iggy mocking ads, ads that show a full facial picture of Jean Cruton with the caption "Please return the stolen Adscam money".
Well, the suit names Canwest and CTV and presumeably, without any advertising, CBC will be hurt as well.. so the point of their ads is that "advertising" is creating a false consumer economy.
I'm not even totally in disagreement - we need more I PHones like a hole in the head..
And yet presumably a NGO could run an anti-smoking ad? Or an anti-drunk driving ad? I think I've seen both. A specific ad like that would probably cause more trouble to the network, but I am assuming Canwest can't just not run them.
Well, the suit names Canwest and CTV and presumeably, without any advertising, CBC will be hurt as well..
What evidence can you provide to suggest that will be the case? I seriously doubt businesses will forgo television adversing just because Adbusters can run its ads. More likely they're threatening the broadcasters in order to maintain the control they have over public discourse.
Remember, the public airwaves belong to all of us and are licensed to the broadcasters. It's not their property to control any way they see fit.
Has anyone been airing the ads. I have not seen them. But I've been watching less TV lately.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that only CNN has aired any of the ads.
ReplyDeleteBCL - this is truly an interesting issue - the degree to which a broadcaster is obligated to sell space which, effectively, seeks to put the broadcaster out of business.
Adbusters basically is an anti-consumerism group, and as I understand, the ads seek to "expose" advertising.. which, as one might expect, wouldn't endeer the broadcaster to their clients, being the advertising industry.
Equally interesting is the issue of the difference between CBC (public) and CanWest (privae) - and whether the over-riding control by the CRTC makes all of them, in a sense, a "public" body, and as such, perhaps obligated to assure the right of free expression.
I'll be curious to see just how our Judiciary manages to screw this up.
Very cool. . . . we can force CBC to run ads ridiculing the commie loving Obama sucking hippie global warming blathering bias it has and that it only costs us poor taxpayers $1.25 Billion dollars a year for their useless drivel !!
ReplyDeleteNow that's an Ad busters's campaign we can all support.
Next . . . we'll go after the Islamofascist loving community newspapers and force them to run pro Israel Ads.
Lastly, we'll force the Toronto Liberal Star rag to run Iggy mocking ads, ads that show a full facial picture of Jean Cruton with the caption "Please return the stolen Adscam money".
Let the fun begin. Wooo Hoooo.
effectively, seeks to put the broadcaster out of business.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Adbusters' primary target are public broadcasting corporations, Rob.
Well, the suit names Canwest and CTV and presumeably, without any advertising, CBC will be hurt as well.. so the point of their ads is that "advertising" is creating a false consumer economy.
ReplyDeleteI'm not even totally in disagreement - we need more I PHones like a hole in the head..
It's just a curious dillema.
Roblaw,
ReplyDeleteAnd yet presumably a NGO could run an anti-smoking ad? Or an anti-drunk driving ad? I think I've seen both. A specific ad like that would probably cause more trouble to the network, but I am assuming Canwest can't just not run them.
Well, the suit names Canwest and CTV and presumeably, without any advertising, CBC will be hurt as well..
ReplyDeleteWhat evidence can you provide to suggest that will be the case? I seriously doubt businesses will forgo television adversing just because Adbusters can run its ads. More likely they're threatening the broadcasters in order to maintain the control they have over public discourse.
Remember, the public airwaves belong to all of us and are licensed to the broadcasters. It's not their property to control any way they see fit.
Quickest way to silence a right winger: Ask him or her to substantiate a claim.
ReplyDelete