Looking to head off even more controversy, NBC announced Saturday that it has reversed its decision to not show ads supporting the troops during the holidays.
Yet, that didn't seem to please the Associated Press which in its article concerning this u-turn chose to depict Freedom's Watch as "a group backed by wealthy Republican fundraisers" that is "critical of liberals."
Was this the appropriate moment to so categorize this organization? If the situation was somewhat reversed, would the AP have characterized MoveOn.org or Media Matters for America as a group backed by wealthy Democrat fundraisers that is critical of conservatives?
Before we get there, AP reported Saturday (emphasis added throughout):
NBC reversed course Saturday and decided to air a conservative group's television ad thanking U.S. troops.
The ad, by the group Freedom's Watch, asks viewers to remember the troops during the holiday season. NBC had refused to air the ad because it guides viewers to the Freedom's Watch Web site, which NBC said was too political.
But in a statement issued Saturday evening, NBC said:
"We have reviewed and changed our ad standards guidelines and made the decision that our policy will apply to content only and not to a referenced Web site. Based on these amended standards the Freedom's Watch ad will begin to run as early as Sunday."
Sadly, the AP didn't appear happy with this decision:
The group's home page is critical of liberals and has a link to a page urging lawmakers not to "cut and run" from the war in Iraq. The home page also links to another Freedom's Watch page dedicated to ways to assist the troops and provides links to organizations that send care packages to soldiers.
[...]
Freedom's Watch, a group backed by wealthy Republican fundraisers, has emerged as one of the best-financed conservative groups. It seeks to be a vocal advocate of President Bush's current policy in Iraq.
If this was about one of the liberal organizations that Hillary Clinton has admitted she helped create and supports, would such have been disclosed by the AP? When this wire service does stories concerning MoveOn.org, does it always refer to the group's primary benefactor George Soros, and that it seeks to be a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies as well as an advocate of liberal Democrat candidates?
Yes, those are rhetorical questions.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Power to the People
December 9, 2007 - 11:08 ET by iveseenitallI and everyone I know wrote to NBC and GE about this travesty. So did millions of other Americans. It worked! Hooraay! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!
God Bless OUR troops. A big THANK YOU to them all.
NEVER,NEVER tust a "liberal"
Amen!!!
December 9, 2007 - 11:47 ET by BourbeauAnd who gives a damn how the AP chooses to report the story, their credibility is long gone, and good riddance to bad rubbish. Again, this was a stupid act on the part of NBC, and their parent GE; and everyone that took a few moments to let them nimrods know what we thought about their insulting decision - a huge thank you. The troops are doing their job, day in and day out, despite the endless bickering and hateful reporting back home. There is never, ever a reason, not to air THANK YOUS to them, regardless of the source. They earn it, they deserve it, and we're damn lucky to have them on our side.
That's right, no one cares;
December 9, 2007 - 12:58 ET by motherbeltThat's right, no one cares; here's why:
NBC reversed course Saturday and decided to air a conservative group's television ad thanking U.S. troops.
That's the first line of the AP story. And I think that's absolutely
wonderful! Makes it plain, for all the world to see, that a conservative group has created an ad thanking US troops.
Where are the ads from liberal groups thanking US troops? All MoveOn came up with is a body count.
No class. All A$$
The AP story also says:
The group's home page is critical of liberals and has a link to a page urging lawmakers not to "cut and run" from the war in Iraq.
Another plus!
And this:
Freedom's Watch, a group backed by wealthy Republican fundraisers, has emerged as one of the best-financed conservative groups.
They must really hate that!! LOL
PS You can see the ads here
...a group backed by
December 9, 2007 - 19:26 ET by Intellectual Honesty...a group backed by wealthy Republican fundraisers
You will NEVER see the reference "...a group backed by wealthy Democrat fundraisers" ever appear in the Democrat-biased media unless it reflects a level of "intention" within the realm of defeat.
and George Soros is just a
December 9, 2007 - 19:39 ET byand George Soros is just a wonderful philantropist because liberal causes are charitable by definition.
"everytime you take a shower you are a mass murderer" -- the Profff
botg
December 9, 2007 - 19:56 ET by shawn228So much for my Steelers predicion.....sigh. The Pats are just awseome and too good.
shawn
December 9, 2007 - 20:02 ET by MrShyRemaining Pats Schedule (cue up the comedic music...):
Bills (pretty bad)
Jets (pretty terrible)
Dolphins (where's the nearest bathroom?)
16 - 0 BABY !!!!!!
"Are ZZ TOP part of the Taliban?? Think on it, son."
-- Professor TP&C (Talking Points & Cheetos)
"You will never see the
December 10, 2007 - 12:58 ET by MikeB"You will never see the reference '...a group backed by wealthy Democrat fundraisers'..." IH, that is because Democrats are for the little guy, and there are no wealthy Democrats. Ted Kennedy, George Soros, the Hollyweird crowd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, et al, are all figments of you imagination.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Noel
December 9, 2007 - 11:16 ET by shawn228First of all I absoloutly agree NBC used a double standard when they decided not to air the "support our troops ad"
That being said, I would not necesarily agree that the AP is doing the same thing. They are merely explaing the reason for the controversy and Freedom watch is obviously anti liberal. I went their website and here is the first sentence afer "Welcome to Freedom watch"
"For too long, conservatives have lacked a permanent political presence
to do battle with the radical special interest groups and their
left-wing allies in government "
If there was some sort of controversy going on about NBC refusing to play and ad from MoveOn.org, I believe AP would report it.
Shawn
December 9, 2007 - 14:44 ET by Noel SheppardShawn,
I think you missed the point. I agree completely that if any media entity dared to not run a MoveOn ad, it would get reported. However, such a news item WOULD NOT discuss the extreme liberal positions of this organization or its primary benefactor.
THAT's the point. ns
Yeah Shawn, the issue is not
December 9, 2007 - 16:03 ET by KeithYeah Shawn, the issue is not whether they WOULD report that a MoveOn add had been rejected but HOW they'd report it. They'd piss and moan and whine like the libtards they are about "Censorship" and the "First Amendment" all words that are noticeably lacking from their "passive endorsement" of NBC's refusal to air the conservative ad.
keith
December 9, 2007 - 16:42 ET by shawn228NBC's issue was not about an ad "thanking our troops" per say. They had a issue with providing a link on their commercial to "Freedom watch" It is a political leaning organization. Now at the same time NBC showed its hypocricy by airing the same kind of Ad by Moveon.
My main point I see hypocricy from NBC, not the AP
Noel,
December 9, 2007 - 16:36 ET by shawn228Noel, I do get the point and what I am saying is if NBC decided not to air the Moveon ad and AP reported it, they would give the whole profile about how it is a liberal site and is generally pro liberal. I remember the AP was very hard on Moveon during the whole General Betrayus ad. They outlined just how liberal Moveon was.
I see the bias by NBC, but not the AP in this case.
The AP practically
December 9, 2007 - 16:48 ET by BlazerThe AP practically employ's jihadist reporter's to spin their whole middle east division. It's not a question of finding hypocrisy with the AP, the AP as a whole is the hypocrisy.
Until they have a stricter vetting process concerning who they will employ, they will be nothing but a scoreboard for leftist's, and terrorist's everywhere, plain and simple.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
blazer
December 9, 2007 - 16:54 ET by shawn228I read quite a bit of the AP, I do not see the bias as you do. No more than MSNBC, ABC, CBS is.
I guess it all depend's on
December 9, 2007 - 17:18 ET by BlazerI guess it all depend's on what kind of glasses your looking at it with.
The whole Green Helmet Guy, Islamic Rage Boy, Bilal Hussien, massacres and bombing's that never happened and a whole plethora of other manufactured new's this agency is responsible for, leaves them no credibility with me.
When it say's AP or Reuter's I roll my eyes and take it with a grain of salt.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
shawn
December 9, 2007 - 18:04 ET by MrShyI read quite a bit of the AP, I do not see the bias as you do. No more than MSNBC, ABC, CBS is.
Um, Shawn, are you PURPOSELY handing me/us this on a silver platter? "No more than MSNBC, ABC, CBS is" ??
MSNBC, ABC, and CBS are NewsBusters primo (pronounced "preemo" :p) targets of being overtly biased! They're awful in this regard, so sure, you can't get much worse than them, and AP is "no more" bias than them... you are correct. They are all about the same.
You can even argue that AP is a tad less, as they are supposed to project themselves as purely a news-feed/ticker outlet. But again, that's a tad less than the most egregious of biased cuprits.
"Are ZZ TOP part of the Taliban?? Think on it, son."
-- Professor TP&C (Talking Points & Cheetos)
ah my goomba
December 9, 2007 - 18:08 ET byis that like "Primo Conaro your compadre chief"?
"everytime you take a shower you are a mass murderer" -- the Profff
bog
December 9, 2007 - 18:23 ET by MrShyHa! Also saw that YouTube link you posted of Big Mama Thornton... good stuff, thx :)
"Are ZZ TOP part of the Taliban?? Think on it, son."
-- Professor TP&C (Talking Points & Cheetos)
shy
December 9, 2007 - 18:10 ET by shawn228thx to many on this site, I now do see what you guys mean about a media biased. It is true they are not very quick to point out the good things in Iraq and our progress with the surge.
At the same time Mr. Shy, I do not things are as biased as many make it seem. When troops are killed, or a politian"usually pro American" is assasinated. when a pipeline is set on fire, it deserve the coverage that it gets.
Anyways back on topic Mr. Shy. All I mean is AP would be every bit as hard on Moveon as Freedom watch in this case.
Blamo !! Right on cue,
December 9, 2007 - 23:52 ET by BlazerBlamo !!
Right on cue, and yep, it's from the AP.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/12/mnf-i-responds-another-bogus-report-no.html
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
AP Is Beautiful
December 9, 2007 - 11:17 ET by rammingspeedLet the AP put out these slanted releases. Let them, let them, let them. They are exposing themselves more each time, losing more credibility each time.
As Malcom X said when he heard JFK was assassinated, "Chickens coming to roost never made me sad, it always made me glad."
}}---> NBC? Big Deal
December 9, 2007 - 12:02 ET by Cool ArrowSo we rejoice that an evil, corrupt corporation buckles to pressure.
Is this where we say Thank ya boss!
I ♣ My Seal
Not to worry, AP -
December 9, 2007 - 12:04 ET by drillanwrThe group's home page is critical of liberals and has a link to a page urging lawmakers not to "cut and run" from the war in Iraq ... a group backed by wealthy Republican fundraisers, has emerged as one of the best-financed conservative groups. It seeks to be a vocal advocate of President Bush's current policy in Iraq.
NBC (and MSNBC) have proven over the last seven years to be completely anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War, anti-Republican, anti-conservative ... So an ad or two supporting the troops during limited Holiday Season play will probably have NBC touting the new network moto: "NBC ... Fair and Balanced"
Horrible
December 9, 2007 - 12:41 ET by timotheI'm sorry, but I'm just as upset, if not more upset about the APs slanted story. I think people are starting to figure out that CNN, MSNBC, and the network news agencies are biased. But most people still see the AP and Reuters as legitimate and unbiased. As Noel has pointed out yet again, they are obviously not.
Liberals
December 9, 2007 - 13:00 ET by iveseenitallRight,Tim. A modern "liberal" is a "liberal" is a "liberal" ---no matter what rock he/she crawls out from under. "Liberals" are a world-wide danger to us all. No exaggeration.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
I think people are starting
December 9, 2007 - 15:20 ET by drillanwrI think people are starting to figure out that CNN, MSNBC, and the network news agencies are biased. But most people still see the AP and Reuters as legitimate and unbiased. As Noel has pointed out yet again, they are obviously not.
tim -
THAT is because the network/print MSM fail miserably in reporting AP's and Reuters' sins ... Such as faked or photoshopped pictures ... reporters who are found "in bed" with the enemy ... and mistaken or faked news stories. Much of which HAS been covered on sites like NB and Michelle Malkin's and others who actually investigate the facts and try to get the public to witness ...
delete
December 9, 2007 - 12:52 ET by motherbeltdelete
And liberals have the nerve to say they support the troops
December 9, 2007 - 13:26 ET by Dee BunkThis is disgusting that there was even the slightest bit of controversy over the ad.
Since Fox has already repeatedly-aired the ad for free...
December 9, 2007 - 16:50 ET by sarcasmo(This was first someone else's idea on another thread, and I forget who, but...) I think Freedom Watch's funniest possible course of action would have been to reverse-course and refuse to buy any airtime on NBC, spreading it evenly among the other networks instead.
The political-judo effect of this would have been, IMO, essentially to force either Tucker Carlson or Chris Matthews to air it for free, while NBC executives grumble under their breath or get fired for losing the money or something. In fact, Freedom Watch could have even spent the money on non-ad-related stuff for good PR, instead, like soccer-balls for the soldiers to give the Afghan/Iraqi kids for Christmas or something, which might have brought even more free attention to their ad.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
I agree. Plenty of positive
December 9, 2007 - 17:11 ET by Roger the ShrubberI agree. Plenty of positive attention would definitely be given to the ad and US troops by handing out soccer balls in Iraq and Afghanistan on a CHRISTIAN holiday.
That would probably not give Muslim extremists ANY type of ammunition to as propaganda against "American Imperialism".
It's been a rough past few days for you, Sarc. Between this gem of a post, and the laughable Ron Paul balloon, you are showing an amazing grasp of foreign policy AND effective use of adverstising. Are you sure you aren't a liberal?
It's a blimp, not a balloon.
December 9, 2007 - 17:33 ET by sarcasmoAnd so far it has yet to take flight, but it's already gotten insane coverage, mostly-positive, and all of it due to "blowback" from the excitement initially created by fake pledges. I'll be honest, at first I was convinced a Ron Paul Blimp was a nutty idea, but now I love it. They'll be dumping tea into Boston Harbor from the damthing on the 17th, if all goes well, which should be highly-amusing.
And I've said many times, I'm a classical liberal, which means I'm for free minds, free markets, and free speech -- even the controversial stuff. The funny part about the blimp is how the blimp is likely to get-around McCain's idiotic law. This is because they've hired a legal team that is obviously very formidable in court, despite the hilarious-IMO page describing them. I fail to see what's "rough" about any of this, though. I'm still having loads of fun.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
okay
December 9, 2007 - 17:38 ET by candanceThe Boston Tea Party was not that amusing the first time it happened, but whatever...
I have to get up early and fill young, impressionable minds with leftwing propaganda. Wish me luck! -Professor TP&C
it will be this time
December 9, 2007 - 17:42 ET byespecially when the EPA shows up
"You got a permit for that?"
"everytime you take a shower you are a mass murderer" -- the Profff
ROFL
December 9, 2007 - 17:50 ET by candanceI can read the headline now:
Wacky Ron Paul supporters waste valuable tea by dumping it haphazardly into open waters - starving in Africa ask why
I have to get up early and fill young, impressionable minds with leftwing propaganda. Wish me luck! -Professor TP&C
"British troops
December 10, 2007 - 13:05 ET by MikeB"British troops instinctively lay a seige on Massachusetts." And, I say let them have Massachusetts.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
thanks Mike. I'll be over
December 10, 2007 - 13:10 ET by Jack Bauerthanks Mike. I'll be over tomorrow to reclaim!
I'll be auctioning it off on eBay once pacified.
Does that come with or without a "Teddy"?
December 10, 2007 - 13:18 ET by MightyMouth"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Please stop insulting the
December 10, 2007 - 07:59 ET by Roger the ShrubberPlease stop insulting the collective intelligence of my fellow Newsbusters with your not-so-clever play on words. "Classical Liberalism" (ie: today's Libertarians) and today's brand of Liberalism (ie: Progressives) are hardly even in the same ballpark, let alone the same thing.
Not so clever?
December 10, 2007 - 08:01 ET by sarcasmo(Look who's talking..) And it's the truth, so I'll say it when I want. I'm one of today's libertarian Republicans, like it or not and name-call or not. You can't make me "a liberal" because I'm not.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
When I see the
December 10, 2007 - 08:08 ET by BlazerWhen I see the word's "classical liberal", the names Karl Marx and Vladmir Lenin come to mind.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
Funny, when I saw your comment
December 10, 2007 - 08:17 ET by sarcasmoThe words "Wikipedia's not always wrong" did the same thing, since reality is exactly the opposite unless Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman also-qualify as raving commies.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
That the AP and NBC are in
December 9, 2007 - 16:51 ET by rbosqueThat the AP and NBC are in bed with the left-wing of the Democratic Party is plainly evident here.
Typical liberal, J. Kerry
December 9, 2007 - 17:20 ET by Sick-n-TiredTypical liberal, J. Kerry move; They were for the commercials before they were against them..........
Flip flop, flip flop, flip flop.
And really, who cares what the AP thinks? The only reason I do is their blatant liberal bias! grrrr......
the ad
December 9, 2007 - 22:09 ET by soosanyou guys are making this too complicated. the problem is that the American media is objecting to a group that supports the American President. They will do anything, including breaking their own rules, to make sure their viewers get just the side of the story that they have been spinning - and it ain't pro-American. I love newsbusters.
I almost responded, until I
December 10, 2007 - 09:29 ET by mattmI almost responded, until I read the last sentence: "Yes, those are rhetorical questions."