CNBC/MSNBC won’t run Freedom Watch ads?
Hot Air.com is noting that FNC and CNN have run ads from Ari Fleischer’s Freedom Watch group but MSNBC and CNBC have not. Ironically, Fleischer appeared on MSNBC yesterday as part of its Super Tuesday coverage.
CNBC and MSNBC are refusing to air the Freedoms Watch ads that we ran in a post last week. The ads feature testimonials by troops and families of troops who have fought in Iraq and support the mission.
They have run on Fox and CNN, but MSNBC and CNBC won’t run them. They’re claiming to have a policy of not airing ads centered on controversial public policy subjects, but according to a letter that Freedoms Watch released today, that explanation doesn’t fly.
The ads amount to false advertising. They tie Iraq to 9/11, insinuating Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. Since this is a lie often repeated on FOX “news” I am sure they will have no trouble airing the ads at the FOX propaganda network.
Comment by MikeD — August 28, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
MikeD, do you think CNN also lies about it?
Comment by jmkaib — August 28, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
And yet MSNBC will air Olbermann.
Comment by eddiebear — August 28, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
NBC has been criticized in the past for not air left-leaning advocacy ads. I think their decisions in both cases are gutless.
Comment by DanOregon — August 28, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
MikeD, please provide the quote or date or reporter who said Iraq was responsible for 9/11….
I won’t hold my breath.
Comment by bigred — August 28, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
MikeD - You forget the “Sicko” ads on FNC.
Comment by erljr — August 28, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
Bigred, MikeD didn’t say that anyone SAID Iraq was behind 911. He said the insinuation is there, and it is….in spades. Fundamental dishonesty by clever implication…again!
Comment by Mike — August 28, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
Ok, geniuses. Tell me how the implication is there. I’ve seen the ads. I watch FOX. I hear them talking about terrorists in Iraq, including Al Qaeda. I don’t hear them say, or imply, Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
Again, if you’ve got the proof.. “in spades” show it. Otherwise, take your liberal talking points back to the blue blogs.
Comment by bigred — August 28, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
The insinuation is that FNC reporters and commentators have been saying all along that Iraq was behind 911.
The truth: recent polls asking who we are currently fighting in Iraq actually show that the American public is pretty smart. That’s because the answer is Al Qaeda, or more specifically AQI. The blue blogs and Chris Matthews twist these poll questions around to insinuate that Americans think Iraq and Al Qaeda were one and the same before the war.
It’s propaganda pure and simple. Does anyone here actually know any Americans who believe MikeD’s “Iraq was behind 911″ story?
Comment by erljr — August 28, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
MikeD is clueless, pure and simple.
Comment by jmkaib — August 28, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19375611/site/newsweek/
Apparently Newsweek was able to find quite a few of these people. Believe it or not, there are people out there who will see these ads and pick up on those insinuations. They are there. Clever advertising, I have to give them that. No less disgusting.
Comment by Keyser Soze — August 28, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
Anybody want to provide a transcript, or perhaps a link to the commercial, so we can judge for ourselves?
I’d sure love to know where the insuations are… cause right now it sounds like a lot of “Yeah, they’re there… *wink*wink*” Gimme something.
Comment by ImNotBlue — August 28, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
BTW… I think these people are the equivalent of the people who think 9/11 was an inside job. Both are wrong, poorly informed, but committed to believing what they want to believe.
Comment by ImNotBlue — August 28, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
http://www.freedomswatch.org/video.aspx
The first ad is the one I saw.
The injured soldier starts by saying “Congress was right to vote to fight terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.” This never happened.
At the time of the authorization, there was no terrorism in or emanating from Iraq. The justifications included: Alleged WMDs; Saddam’s violations of UN directives; Saddam’s brutality toward Iraqis; and the goal of establishing a democracy in the Middle East.
There was no evidence, then or now, that Iraq engaged in terrorism against Americans.
Later, we see an airplane flying into the second WTC tower as the first one is engulfed in smoke. The soldier says “They attacked us…they won’t stop in Iraq.”
Of course the “they” who attacked us never had anything to do with Saddam and Iraq. While a small portion of the enemy fighters refers to itself as “Al Qaeda in Iraq,” there is no evidence that they are tied to Bin Laden or Zawahiri, and certainly no link between them and 9/11.
I admire and salute the sacrifice of the young man in the advertisement. There are also good reasons to continue the surge, even for those who opposed the initial invasion. This advertisement is well-done and powerful. However, it would be more accurate without yet another attempt to tie the current enemy to 9/11.
Comment by chalmers — August 28, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
Thanks Chalmers, for the link… and I agree, that first could be misconstrued that way. I could put up a lengthy defense of why it doesn’t actually say that… but that’s not the point… the point is that it sounds like that, and sometimes that’s enough.
However, not all of the spots are like that. Only the first one seemed to be a little fuzzy on the details… the other ones, especially the last two… are totally different. Those could be run without anyone suggesting that they’re mixing the issues.
However, I were MSNBC, and were really concerned about “not airing ads centered on controversial public policy subjects,” I probably wouldn’t have aired commercials for “Sicko” either. Anyone know if they did?
Comment by ImNotBlue — August 28, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
KS - Did you see who conducted the poll? Did you notice they sited 2004 results?… even though they’ve only been around since 2005… Did you see their poll saying only 4% of Americans think President Bush has “political courage.” Like Zogby, this organization has been discredited and is no longer used by any credible news organization. Wake up. Spin and bias are everywhere.
Comment by erljr — August 28, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
#14–Wrong, wrong, wrong. Bin Laden himself has called the war in Iraq the central point in the war on terror. He and Zawahiri asked all Muslims to join the jihad in Iraq. They anointed Zarqawi the “prince of Al Qaeda in Iraq”.
It is Al Qaeda that is trying to spur on the secterian violence there. They are the ones who blow up mosques in the hopes of igniting a civil war. Fortunately, even the Sunni insurgents are tired of their ways and have now turned against them.
This isn’t a Republican talking point. This is widely reported and acknowledged.
As for “no terrorism in or emanating from Iraq”… Again. Wrong. Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers to attack the Israelis. Saddam terrorized his own people and neighboring countries for years.
And Zarqawi left Afghanistan and set up shop in Baghdad BEFORE we invaded.
The point of the commercials is..the terrorists are in Iraq NOW. And running away from them only emboldens them.
Comment by bigred — August 29, 2007 @ 3:03 am
Since when did MSNBC check out all aspects of paid advertisements they air to make sure nothing in them is “false”. Just another example of MSNBC’s selective “integrity”.
Comment by Anne B — August 29, 2007 @ 9:05 am
People need to get over why we entered Iraq originally, and deal with what is going on right NOW. Whoever we were fighting when we got into Iraq, we are NOW fighting the group that attacked us on 9/11. About that, there should be no dispute.
Comment by erljr — August 29, 2007 @ 10:29 am
erljr,
That is right on target but you won’t ever hear anything close to this on MSNBC, it isn’t politically convienent for this network. At somepoint MSNBC was intimdated and compromised by the left’s blogsphere. MSNBC was not making a business decision in the case of these ads.
Comment by Ree — August 29, 2007 @ 11:17 am
Eddiebear, MSNBC doesn’t find Olbermann’s public policy subjects and opinions “controversial” because everyone who works there generally agrees with him.
Comment by Caufield — August 29, 2007 @ 11:31 am
#14 - I agree, BigRed, that regardless of wether or not Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the invasion is irrelevant…they are there now. So to go on litigating the rationale of the invasion is pointless.
That being said, these commercials do not present the whole truth in what is going on in Iraq (although they are the opinions being expressed for the most part).
Click the link to the ads in post #14 and watch the second ad from the top….the one narrated by Laura Youngblood. In the video she states that she “lost two family members to Al Qaeda”…one being her uncle, who was a fireman (presumably killed when the WTC towers collapsed) and her husband, Travis, “who fought in Iraq.”
Now I find it distasteful to question the beliefs held by a widow of one of our brave soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice, but how can she (or the military, for that matter) be certain that Al Qaeda was directly responsible for the death of her husband? If you look up her husband on the internet, you’ll see that he was killed by an IED in Hit, Iraq. This is in the Sunni area and it is quite possible that the group known as “Al Qaeda in Iraq” planted that IED. Then again, there is a vast number of Sunni insurgents who were operating independently and have used these IEDs against our troops….so to make the leap that her husband died at the hands of Al Qaeda is questionable.
The point being…the video I am talking about is somewhat misleading, as is the first video discussed. True, Iraq was engaged in state-sponsored terrorism, but it has been long dismissed that they had anything to do with 9/11 and the group in Iraq now is an off-shoot of the group that attacked us. But I don’t want to argue the politics of the war.
Personally, I’m glad that soldiers and their loved ones are given a platform to express their views….too often in the media the ones who are given a platform are the ones who have turned against the effort. Nevertheless, I find two of these ads to be somewhat misleading and think they could have gotten their message across without leading people to believe that every violent act committed against our troops is the work of “those who attacked us on 9/11.” It is far more complex of a situation than that.
Comment by FishOil — September 3, 2007 @ 2:19 am