Friday, January 30, 2009

Catholic Vote on NBC Refusing Ad

We broke this news yesterday, but wanted to make sure you have the full story - NBC has slammed the door on running our ad during the Super Bowl!

After several days of negotiations, a representative in Chicago told us that NBC and the NFL are not interested in advertisements involving ‘political candidates or issues.’

We were in the midst of raising the money needed, and had confirmed interest from several very generous pro-life benefactors. Airing the ad would have been very expensive, and a 'Super' opportunity.

But NBC’s rejection is calling even more attention to the ad. We have been appearing on radio programs across the country for the past two days, and NBC’s New York affiliate (imagine the irony), is covering the controversy. Bill O’Reilly of the FOX News Channel featured the ad on his program Wednesday night calling it “brilliant” and “genius.” His show alone reached nearly 4 million people.

All of this is driving more traffic to the commercial online. We reached almost 1 million online views in less than two weeks!

So why did NBC reject the ad?

The network claims that they do not allow political or issue advocacy advertisements during the Super Bowl, but that’s simply not true.

The network was willing to air an ad by PETA, which is definitely an advocacy group, if PETA would tone down their ad’s sexual suggestiveness.

Also, the first ad scheduled to run during the Super Bowl is a creative spot about Pedigree’s pet adoption drive. The ad ends with the line: “Help us help dogs.”

In recent years, some Super Bowl advertisements have caused controversy. But there’s nothing objectionable about our positive, life-affirming advertisement. We show a beautiful ultrasound, something NBC’s parent company GE has done for years. We don’t attack Barack Obama, but focus on him becoming the first African-American President. We simply ask people to imagine the potential of each human life.

What now?

We’re not intimidated by NBC. We plan on getting this ad out so that many millions of Americans can imagine the potential of each human life. Here are some things you can do:

We are preparing a virtual protest of NBC’s decision. We want other networks to know that hundreds of thousands of people want to see this ad aired, and we will not give up easily. Stay tuned for our plan on this in the next few days.

The Catholic television station EWTN will be airing the commercial before, during and after the Super Bowl. Feel free to turn your channel to EWTN during halftime and watch our ad there.
You can still share the commercial with friends and family. Tell them to go to CatholicVote.org and watch the ad NBC doesn’t want them to see! Heck, show it at your Super Bowl party!

We’ve been humbled by the donations we’ve received to help get this ad out. We are especially grateful to the group of very generous benefactors that agreed to help if we got air time for the Super Bowl.

We aren’t certain they will still help, but we will use any funds we receive from you and others to air the ad in the most prominent and cost-effective venues available.

Perhaps the ad should run during the Academy Awards or maybe American Idol, which is popular with the youth. Maybe we should run it following President Obama’s first State of the Union address?

If you have ideas, tell us what you think.


Brian BurchCatholicVote.org

Friday, January 23, 2009

You'll know the media honeymoon with Obama is over when...

Last night Mr. Obama's feathers were ruffled when the press acted like... the press. They asked a simple, direct question and wanted an answer. Clearly the Prez hadn't crafted a good non-answer yet 'cause he fell back on the new Presidential 5th Amendment, "I'm not here to take tough questions". Well, I hate to shock Mr. Obama, but being the President means handling tough stuff, including a few questions from the media.

Oh, the honeymoon is ending fast, isn't it? First he dumps on AP, Reuters and others by keeping them out of the White House on day one of business, breaking a long-time tradition. Then he ignores the questions of the press.

Now Obama's Press Secretary is also avoiding answering the question: While I was typing this Gibbs met with the press, so I kind of half listened. HE wouldn't answer the question posed to Obama last night either. So much for this open government, transparent, gonna handle things differently than the big bad Bush.

The question? How come Obama says he has a strict ban on lobbyists, yet Deputy Defense Secretary nominee was a lobbyist for Raytheon.

We're only into this Presidency a few days and he's already breaking campaign promises and his own policies?

Mr. Obama is discovering quickly that President's accrue enemies on all sides of the political and public spectrum every time they open their mouths.

You'll know the honeymoon is REALLY over when Leno and Letterman start cracking jokes about Obama.

Obama flashes irritation in press room (includes video)
President Obama made a surprise visit to the White House press corps Thursday night, but got agitated when he was faced with a substantive question. Asked how he could reconcile a strict ban on lobbyists in his administration with a Deputy Defense Secretary nominee who lobbied for Raytheon, Obama interrupted with a knowing smile on his face.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17831.html

Not surprised: Media went crazy over BHO Inauguration

I can't imagine anyone being shocked at this story re: media going nuts over Obama inauguration. Aside from the fact that we already know the media loves Obama (tingling legs and all) this election and subsequent inauguration really fit the bill as real news.

I may fault the media for the way they faun over Obama, but we have crossed a threshold and this is a first for America. Would that the election of our first mixed-race half-white half-black President were the only thing newsworthy about this election. Good chance the "changes" he makes won't be news many of us will want to read.

Comparing this inauguration to the second term of President Bush's inauguration isn't exactly comparing apples to apples, either. Now maybe they used the 2005 Bush inauguration simply to swell the stats for their story and make Obama look better... that wouldn't surprise me either.

Study: Media Went Crazy over Obama Inauguration
Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:25 PM
LOS ANGELES — President Barack Obama's inauguration generated an unprecedented 35,000 stories in the world's major newspapers, television and radio broadcasts over the past day -- about 35 times more than the last presidential swearing-in -- a monitoring group said on Wednesday...
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/media_obama_study/2009/01/21/173869.html?s=al&promo_code=7858-1

Beginning of end of media love-fest with Obama?

Oooo, hooo, sumbudy stepped on the toes o' the media... and it seems like they're flexing their muscles to let Mr. Obama's White House know who's really in control... It's the little things that sometimes lead to the toppling of an empire.

AP, Reuters, AFP Refuse to Distribute Obama White House Photo
Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:30 AM
NEW YORK -- Three news agencies refused to distribute White House-provided photos of President Barack Obama in the Oval Office on Wednesday, arguing that access should have been provided to news photographers.
The Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse said the White House was breaking with long-standing tradition in not allowing news photographers to capture the president at work in the Oval Office on his first day...
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_news_photos/2009/01/22/173929.html?s=al&promo_code=7858-1

Part 1 - YouTube banned videos; Is it censorship?

The following is part 1 of a 6 part series on the Birmingham Community Examiner on a subject that concerns many --- the banning of conservative videos on YouTube (owned by Google). I firmly believe that at some point conservatives are going to be bumped from all Google owned media. I think it's happening now to some degree.

I'm watching Heritage News Media Partners (www.nmatv.com) closely. They have some great conservative videos. We need to be workin' hard to set up alternatives to all media from video to newspaper to blog hosts, especially if they pass the un-"Fairness Doctrine".

YouTube banned videos; Is it censorship?
After numerous reports of video’s being banned from YouTube, a Google Global Company, the need for answers became paramount. Researching the video’s that currently reside on YouTube, took quite some time, they are seemingly endless. At first glance viewers would assume the prevalent theme is one of unity, especially on a site where anyone can join and add their own view. It becomes apparent very quickly, this is not the case, if that view is of a conservative nature. Granted, some remain with a definite bend to the right, but for a conservative looking through the glass that is You Tube, the majority of this glass house only contains left turning halls...
http://www.examiner.com/x-1344-Birmingham-Community-Examiner~y2009m1d22-You-Tube-banned-videos-is-it-censorship

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

It's the President's fault the media didn't like him...

I'm having a hard time typing because I'm STILL shaking my head in wonder at this one! New York Times Reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg spoke about George W. Bush on Charlie Rose Monday. Here's one of her comments:
"If he [President Bush] had engaged the press throughout his administration and used the press to his advantage, he would not find himself at the end of his presidency in a situation where he couldn't even come back for a simple photograph."

Here's another excerpt: "I think this president has never been comfortable with the press."

Hmmm, when's the last time you were comfortable with a group of people out to get you? a group who made fun of you and pointed out every single flaw?

I defy anyone to take a run back through the past eight plus years and find some really nice, or even balanced, reporting on George W. Bush by the mainstream media. Sure, they tossed in the occasional vague kinda-sorta positive bit of praise just so they could point and say "look, we tried, we're balanced in our reporting" but for the most part, President Bush couldn't get a nice story in the mainstream media if he wrote it himself and paid to have it included.

There was a brief respite after September 11th 2001, but that didn't last long, did it?

One thing that is patently clear when it comes to the media --- if they start out with the premise that you're a big bad nasty environment-hating, big-business loving Republican they're not going to change their minds and the bias is going to show.

When the media likes someone, like say, oh who might the media like at the moment? Maybe Barack Obama? The One they're throwing a party for after the Inauguration? When the media likes someone they don't look for dirt. They don't try to find the negative. They see everything through the prism of goodness thus it's easy to only see the positive.

Case in point is the lack of late-night talk show host jokes about Obama. Even though President Bush is leaving office, they can't stop with the nasty, biting jokes.

Stolberg's comment are very much like the statement a bully might make when caught beating someone up. "He started it, it's his fault I pounded him to a pulp."

Remember this joke that made the rounds via email:
The Pope visits Washington and President Bush takes him for a ride down the
Potomac on the presidential yacht. They're enjoying themselves when a gust of
wind blows the Pope's hat (zucchetto) off and out onto the water. The Secret
Service begins to launch a boat but Bush waves them off saying, "Wait. I'll take
care of this." Bush steps off the yacht onto the surface of the water, walks out
a ways and picks up the hat. Back on board, he hands the hat to the Pope amid
stunned silence.The next morning the Washington Post carries the story complete
with photos under the heading BUSH CAN'T SWIM.

It sums up the media's treatment of President Bush perfectly.

Here's a link to the video of Stolber's talk on Charlie Rose: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9936

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Video Expose of the Media



Hat tip to Robert Owens on Facebook, from Ohio: "A politician in the mold of Larry McDonald (D-Ga), Ron Paul (R-Tx), John Ashbrook (R-Oh) and Sen. Robert Taft (R-Oh)"

Sunday, January 4, 2009

We HAVE to find a way to combat the media

Saw this post on the Read My Lipstick Network earlier:
Time to Rumble with CNN; They Lump Palin with Criminals
CNN Places Sarah Palin With 2008's Criminals, Sex Addicts, and the Corrupt
By Warner Todd Huston
January 4, 2009 - 07:06 ET
Showing they have no sense of morality, no grasp of corruption and no understanding of what defines a criminal, CNN gives us another one of those ubiquitous year…

Day after day I see subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on conservatism in the media.

This morning I watched the talk that has the humor at the end? The Sunday funnies is what they call it. It's a compilation of their choice of humorous comments by the late-night shows. They demean President Bush continually. He's leaving office now and they still can't resist showing their nastiness and lack of class by attacking him. Without merit I might say.

I'm waiting to see them start attacking Barack Obama in the same way. Do you think David Letterman will have Presidential Moments showing Obama's propensity for "uh uh uh'ing"??? Bet they don't.

But that's not really the worst. It's just a symptom and it's petty stuff, not the real deal that runs rampant through the media.

You know, it's not just the so-called "news" that is undermining our values. Look at the recent commercials by Levi. They're kiddie porn.

What about all the shows you watch on a regular basis? Sit back and really think about what is being said and portrayed in the movies and on those weekly sitcoms. Even worse is the messages being taught in the programs our kids are watching. Sit and watch some of those cartoons and really think about the values woven into humorous dialog.

It's a problem and boycotts just don't seem to work.

For instance, in my household I rarely, if ever watch TV. I'll watch the talks on Sunday mornings and maybe an occasional movie just to be sociable with my spouse (although I'm not sure how sitting in front of a screen without talking is considered 'sociable'). My spouse however, will watch anything. So, how much good does it do for ME to boycott programs? The TV is still on. The networks don't know that only one person is watching. Although we're both in agreement as to how horrible the brainwashing is on television, I'm the only one willing to give it up.

If I can't control the TV here, I can't see enough families being able to turn off the television for hours on end.

We have to do something. I saw another post on here or maybe on our Facebook group page advocating for a media blackout for three hours on Friday evening. I think that might be doable for almost everyone. Take the family out to eat or to a play. Go to a concert. Plan some activity during that time frame... maybe set up a weekly card game with friends.

We have to do something.

If we don't, we're going to lose this country even faster than we're doing now. Don't let CNN get away with that story that included Sarah Palin in with criminals and low-life types. They're scared of Sarah Palin and they're doing a GWBush on her. We let them get away with trashing President Bush, don't let them do the same to any more conservatives. Even if you don't care for Sarah Palin she's "one of us" and we should be supporting her. Remember that old saying or poem about "they came for the Jews and I did nothing because I wasn't a Jew" (I know that's not exact)? They came for George W. Bush and we did nothing. They came for Sarah Palin and it looks like many are doing nothing. Sooner or later they'll come for you.