Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eveable wrote:
we can allow ads to tell everyone that God does not exist but we can't allow an ad for a online dating service??


YOU can allow whatever commercials you want. CTV can allow whatever they want. I don't know who you mean by "we" but you aren't part of CTV's decision making structure and I applaud there sense of decency. It isn't a question of whether or not you, or anyone else, will be influenced by the commercial. It is a question of moral standards and CTV is right on the money here. Ashley Madison can take their commercials to Spike TV.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

John Larocque wrote:
Here's another rejected Superbowl ad:
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4801.html

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c


The news story does a disservice to the ad, IMO. I'm not particularily passionate about the issue, and even knowing the 'suprise' ending, I was touched. Brilliant work by whomever designed it.

I don't get how the larger issue is at all controversial, on the other hand... as a private network, a station has the right to broadcast or not broadcast whatever it chooses. As a buisiness, a station has a right, and an obligation to shareholders, to act in it's percieved best interest.

Consumers have various means at their disposal to alter that perception to their benefit, and anything short of force, or force by proxy (aka government intervention) is a reasonable expression of their desires.
Habsrwfan





Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Posts: 688
Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Habsrwfan wrote:
I'm pleasantly surprised. It's nice to know that CTV has some real moral fiber at their place of business.

And, to anybody who thinks that this is a freedom of speech issue - it isn't. CTV is a private company, and as such, has discretion in what ads it will air.

So when a Christian group tries to run a 30 second ad and the CTV says they're not interested because they're concerned it might offend Muslims, you'll be okay with it, right?

-Mac


I wouldn't like it, obviously, but I wouldn't act like CTV had a "freedom of speech" obligation to run the ad either.

Mac, let's cut to the chase... do you think that television stations should be required to air any ad that any company or organization wants to run on them? If so, doesn't that take away from the freedom of television station owners and execs to run their companies as they see fit?

And actually, I agree with a pro-life political advocacy ad being rejected for the Superbowl. People should be able to enjoy the Superbowl with out having political statements that they may, or may not, agree with shoved down their throats. If anything calls for mainstream ads, it's the Superbowl.
Habsrwfan





Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Posts: 688
Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscalconservative wrote:
Habsrwfan wrote:
I'm pleasantly surprised. It's nice to know that CTV has some real moral fiber at their place of business.

And, to anybody who thinks that this is a freedom of speech issue - it isn't. CTV is a private company, and as such, has discretion in what ads it will air.


I find the ad as disgusting as the social conservatives do, but I do think it comes down to freedom of speech.


How is Ashley Madison's "freedom of speech" being taken away by this? The people who work for, and run, Ashley Madison can still say whatever they want to say - it's just that CTV isn't going to air it for them. I'm sure that Ashley Madison can run ads on very left-leaning CityTV (a prominent Canadian station). I'm also sure that Ashley Madison can try to start up its own TV station or radio station, and air ads there.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean that I can demand for a prominent TV station to serve as my soap box.

Quote:
The fact that CTV is a private company is really irrelevant.


No, it isn't.

Quote:
It is one of Canada's few television networks.


Your point being?


Quote:


I think they might be playing into these peoples hands anyway. They probably didn't have the money to run these ads anyway. They got more publicity by not running them.
These types of people have shown the ability to get social conservatives to do exactly what they want them to.


CTV is ran by social conservatives? You really think that?
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Habsrwfan wrote:
I wouldn't like it, obviously, but I wouldn't act like CTV had a "freedom of speech" obligation to run the ad either.

Mac, let's cut to the chase... do you think that television stations should be required to air any ad that any company or organization wants to run on them? If so, doesn't that take away from the freedom of television station owners and execs to run their companies as they see fit?

And actually, I agree with a pro-life political advocacy ad being rejected for the Superbowl. People should be able to enjoy the Superbowl with out having political statements that they may, or may not, agree with shoved down their throats. If anything calls for mainstream ads, it's the Superbowl.

Sorry if my position wasn't clear. If a television station is privately owned and operated, the state has no business interfering in the content which they broadcast... or choose NOT to broadcast.

If there was one media outlet which doesn't have this choice, it should be the CBC since they're not privately owned. Somehow I doubt the CBC would agree to such a concept since that wouldn't allow them to push their hard-left agenda day-in and day-out.

-Mac
Habsrwfan





Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Posts: 688
Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Habsrwfan wrote:
I wouldn't like it, obviously, but I wouldn't act like CTV had a "freedom of speech" obligation to run the ad either.

Mac, let's cut to the chase... do you think that television stations should be required to air any ad that any company or organization wants to run on them? If so, doesn't that take away from the freedom of television station owners and execs to run their companies as they see fit?

And actually, I agree with a pro-life political advocacy ad being rejected for the Superbowl. People should be able to enjoy the Superbowl with out having political statements that they may, or may not, agree with shoved down their throats. If anything calls for mainstream ads, it's the Superbowl.

Sorry if my position wasn't clear. If a television station is privately owned and operated, the state has no business interfering in the content which they broadcast... or choose NOT to broadcast.

If there was one media outlet which doesn't have this choice, it should be the CBC since they're not privately owned. Somehow I doubt the CBC would agree to such a concept since that wouldn't allow them to push their hard-left agenda day-in and day-out.

-Mac


Oh, I see. You were just testing to see if I'd be consistent. Well, I'm glad that I was. :wink:
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Habsrwfan wrote:
Oh, I see. You were just testing to see if I'd be consistent. Well, I'm glad that I was. :wink:

Yes... you get to live for another day... :P

-Mac
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2

Goto page Previous  1, 2  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


CTV bans Ashley Madison ad for Super Bowl

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB