posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 11:36 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa...
The point of my post was that, so far as the original story was written, it looked like CBS affiliates were being ordered to essentially give a guy
free advertising time, which I thought to be unfair. I even made a point of saying that the source was from Drudge... and I thought that I implied
that I wasn't sure if it was verified yet.
Now, look, I'd be more than happy to hear how it's a-ok and usual for affiliates to be told to air free advertising time by their networks. I
haven't seen that explained, though... when I looked up the definition of 'must carry' I didn't see anything that could excuse this, but, again,
I'm not an expert and so am open to hearing about how this book premotion is covered by a legitimate use of 'must carry'.
For the record, if a retired Republican was selling a book and affiliates were ordered to carry a free promo I'd be equally worried.