CBS News forces YOUTUBE to pull McCain 'LIPSTICK' ad

CBS News has jumped into the middle of the presidential race, forcing YouTube to take down a Web ad by John McCain’s campaign that the network calls “misleading” in its use of Katie Couric.

The ad, entitled “Lipstick,” accuses Barack Obama of calling McCain running mate Sarah Palin a lipstick-wearing pig. It features at the end a quote from Couric bemoaning the “continued and accepted role of sexism in American life.” Couric at the time was referring to Democratic primary coverage of Sen. Hillary Clinton.

The ad ends with a picture of Obama and a caption reading, “Ready to lead? No. Ready to smear? Yes.”

[linkelections.foxnews.com...][/link]
So what now, are they going to do this for every video they don't like? hmm...

reply to post by 4x4fun

---

Nah that's nothing.
It's just a new form of censorship that seems to be rampant, that's all.

This is proof positive that the media is in bed for Obama. Stepping in on a candidates behalf is abominable.
This opens a dangerous precedent, every ad from here on out on youtube will be attempted to be censored. CBS supports censorship. Youtube is under attack. The internet has just been brutally violated.

After seeing the ad yesterday, I wondered if CBS/Katie Couric [not the most conservative of news sources] would take umbrage with her image being used in a McCain ad.

Apparently, steps have been taken.

No matter. The mudslinging will continue. That's what the people want, whether they like it or not...even though they LOVE it.

Perhaps Dr. Phil could moderate a debate. Criss Angel can appear with the final question, then explode in a blaze of hair spray.

If Chuck Norris or Bill O' appeared in an Obama ad, would you guys still be crying foul?
Just askin'...

Look like censorship is rampant at all levels...even here on ATS!!! Realy makes you wonder just what it is everyone is afraid of in the political arena??

Zindo

Maybe Couric wanted them removed...it doesnt matter.

Its cute how they ask in the ad "Ready to Smear?" when really thats all this ad is doing. Another double standard.

Back to the damn issues people!!

CBS was a day late and a dollar short.

McCain's camp knew what they were doing, get out an effective ad in a few hours, let the media get ahold of it and report it, and before CBS feigned outrage the damage was done.

Response to Alxandro:



This new form of censorship IS rampant. Great observation.

If I say something bad and you point it out to everyone, are you just as bad as me? Think about it. Should I be able to keep saying bad things and never be challenged? That is the standard Obama's campaign seeks.

When will the whining end?



Do you think labeling someone a sexist for using a common figure of speech is a bit PC?
Isn't this an affront to free speech? Most conservatives abhor those types of action.

If anything it seems the McCain camp is adopting its own form of censorship by pulling the politically correct "sexism" card to attack Obama, not unlike the "race" card they claimed Obama used on them.

It goes both ways folks.

If Obama had called her a pig this would be a big issue but he didn't so it isn't.

Also if CBS does not want Couric used in a political smear ad then they have every right to ask it be removed. She was not addressing the issue of Obama and his use of the expression. You do know in the real world you may need to get the consent of someone you plan to use in any advertisement before you publish it and disseminate it to the public?

P.S. Here's a simple solution without raising the paranoid evil-media alarm: Edit the Couric part OUT of the ad. Remove CBS from the equation that never should have included them at all. Then you can still be free to cry sexist foul in the ad without dishonestly making it seem legitimized by a major news network..

My goodness it's that simple.

- Lee

It seems the words "pig" and "lipstick" are now off limits, here and everywhere else and to be honest, so you are right.

...BUT don't forget, during the same speech he also made reference to "a fish", and don't forget, a Barracuda is a fish.

I just checked and I found the ad still on youtube. w613nayrYwo .. That was the ID number I think....Anyways, CBS aint the big bad bear they WANT to be. Not on the net. Thats why they demonize all things internet related. They only WISH they could control it like they can control their programming.

Edit: link to the ad

[edit on 10/18/2007 by titorite]

CBS and Katie Couric have every right to ask that she not be used in a deceitful ad. I don't see the problem. If Bill O'reilly was featured in an Obama ad looking like he was supporting him or shaming McCain, I'm 100% sure he and FOX would have something to say about it. And I would support him in it, too.

The video is still on YouTube, so I'm not sure this story is true.

whether the ad is deceitful or not is a matter of opinion. I thought it was quite effective myself. Maybe it's just being taken out of context or being misinterpreted..

There are two issues here related to each other but neither an imposition on free speech: First, the use of a copyrighted excerpt of Katie Couric but in misleading and unfair use as opposed to "fair use." Second, the invasion of privacy rights of Couric by commercially using her image and statements without permission or payment.

Has there been any legal determinations made on this matter, or is this just supposition? I'd be interested in hearing what both sides have to say on the matter.

Privacy is one thing. Use of image without permission or remuneration is quite another. People who are in the limelite are not protected if pictures are taken without permission and posted. However, what was posted (images and audio) was protected by copywrite protections and might just be illegal to use in such a manner! I think that intent would also come under scrutiny. If this is used as political satire then things might be legal. Sure is a hodgepodge of problems here,LOL!!


Zindo

privacy is the legal term for the right to not have your image used without permission or renumeration. there are exceptions but the related issue of copyright takes this out of the dimension of free speech.

I think the network was not "playing favorites." From the sounds of it, the ad-makers used footage that was irrelevant in a way that suggested something was being said (about the Obama/Palin issue) by one of theirs, and that just was not true.

I don't like Obama. I don't like McCain, either. The issue is NOT censorship. It is misuse of footage.

Meanwhile, I am voting for Ron Paul.

I was wondering the same thing, but wasn't going to say anything. You know what I mean?

;-)