CBS News forces YOUTUBE to pull McCain 'LIPSTICK' ad, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

reply posted on 11-9-2008 @ 09:25 PM by Matrix1111

Originally posted by Amaterasu
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.

That was not very smart of the ad-makers. Taking a quote out of context is deceptive advertising. Break the public's faith in one's integrity and you can never rebuild it. But I guess we can only expect honesty to be displayed in advertising when pigs fly. And we can talk about it until the cows come home and it won't do any good. And even worse, something is very fishy about this whole matter of one side claiming superior levels of honesty and integrity over the other side. If you ask me, it stinks on both sides of the aisle.

reply posted on 11-9-2008 @ 09:26 PM by Sublime620

reply to post by Alxandro

So you care that they took the video down, but you have no problem that the attack ad used not one, but two different quotes taken out of context?

*Edit to add:

I guess ATS isn't the only one tired of the useless mud being thrown around. Maybe you guys can cry to CBS also.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Sublime620]

reply posted on 11-9-2008 @ 11:35 PM by Amaterasu

Originally posted by Matrix1111
That was not very smart of the ad-makers. Taking a quote out of context is deceptive advertising. Break the public's faith in one's integrity and you can never rebuild it. But I guess we can only expect honesty to be displayed in advertising when pigs fly. And we can talk about it until the cows come home and it won't do any good. And even worse, something is very fishy about this whole matter of one side claiming superior levels of honesty and integrity over the other side. If you ask me, it stinks on both sides of the aisle.

But it's having the desired effect. Because of the controversy...it's being seen by more people than it would have been without the controversy.

Ignore it and it will go away, I say.

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 07:38 AM by Matrix1111

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Ignore it and it will go away, I say.

I wish it was that easy. But I know what you mean.

Btw, did you know only 38% of voters voted in the last election? Some people are trying to ignore the stupidity. Unfortunately it doesn't change the fact that we don't have the best candidates volunteering to be president in the first place. So it's a lose-lose situation no matter what.

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 11:15 AM by Amaterasu

Originally posted by Matrix1111

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Ignore it and it will go away, I say.

I wish it was that easy. But I know what you mean.

Well, of course I didn't mean ignore the forces BEHIND the ad... [smile] But yeah. It is not that easy.

Btw, did you know only 38% of voters voted in the last election? Some people are trying to ignore the stupidity. Unfortunately it doesn't change the fact that we don't have the best candidates volunteering to be president in the first place. So it's a lose-lose situation no matter what.

I did indeed know that. What would happen if 85% voted, I wonder...

We have some few good ones (Paul, Kucinich, Barr...) but the MSM as a whole tells the sheep to snicker under their collective breath and move on to the "real" candidates. Such is our controlled system.

reply posted on 12-9-2008 @ 12:44 PM by lee anoma

Originally posted by Matrix1111
That was not very smart of the ad-makers. Taking a quote out of context is deceptive advertising. Break the public's faith in one's integrity and you can never rebuild it. But I guess we can only expect honesty to be displayed in advertising when pigs fly. And we can talk about it until the cows come home and it won't do any good. And even worse, something is very fishy about this whole matter...

my bold

Pig's fly?

Something fishy?

Just what are you up to here Mister?

I agree with you. The ad makers were in serious error here all across the board. Using footage of Couric in such a dishonest way and thinking it would fly was just plain stupid. CBS isn't censoring the ad they are demanding Couric not be used in it. They have every right to. You have to make sure your ad doesn't violate copyright or fair use before you hit the send button.

Look at the mess with the soon to be released movie Watchmen. They shot an entire film they didn't properly secure the rights to. Now it belongs to FOX, or will shortly.

Remember when actor Tom Skerritt sued when he appeared on a male enhancement ad as if endorsing the product without his consent? He won.

Is that censorship too?

Sorry but the McCain camp is being foolish if they pursue this as censorship when they need to simply go back to class and take Advertising 101.

The ad censored itself upon creation.
The ad maker should be demoted to image scanner for a month.

Oh and please stop trying to erroneously draw parallels between CBS and ATS.
You're so far off the target that your arrow is heading right back at you.

- Lee

reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 01:11 AM by 4x4fun

Originally posted by Alxandro
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.

I don't know if this form of cencorship is rampant yet, but I'm worried it might be soon.

This time CBS tells YouTube to take down an internet ad, because they feel it's "misleading".
"Misleading"?
Whatever term works right?
Misleading, degrading, unhelpful, unfriendly hmm...
We can think of a few more can't we?

YouTube doesn't seem to be making much of a fuss about it either.
Well, It looks to me as if they just bowed down to CBS and said "Yes my Master" or, who know's, maybe they've come to some sort of partnership agreement at long last.

Threats of legal action, deals, partnerships, money, whatever it takes, I won't be surprised if other networks and entities followed CBS/YouTubes example of cencorship? It might be benificial to all parties envolved.

It might be too late for Paris Hilton, Pamela Anderson, the StarWars kid, Obama, Sarah Palin, you, me and others, but it does seem like it just got a little easier , or should I say alot. hmm...

Maybe one day if this site is still in existance at the time, someone will come accross my post and say "hey guys, we're gonna have to get ATS to remove this post because we don't want her saying those things"!
Scary thought huh?

//CENCORED//
//Marked for deletion//

//