Today is Pearl Harbor Day - the anniversary of a day that lives in infamy when Japanese troops attacked a military base in Hawaii and spurred the United States into World War II. It's a day to commemorate those men and women who have served our country, particularly those who lost their lives in doing so. Ironically, NBC and Freedom's Watch have chosen today to publicly debate advertising censorship.
Freedom's Watch is a group that supports the U.S. war on terror. It's a controversial issue to say the least. Freedom's Watch has tried to place ads on NBC in the past related to troop funding. Those ads were also rejected by NBC, but today, Freedom's Watch sent a letter to NBC and posted a petition on their website fighting the rejection of their most recent ad that is meant to thank U.S. troops serving around the world during the holidays. Apparently, the ad included the URL for Freedom's Watch, which NBC wanted removed. Freedom's Watch refused to remove the URL, thus, the network refused to air it on NBC, MSNBC or CNBC.
According to a quote from the Associated Press, Alan Wurtzel, NBC's head of standards and practices, said:
"We have a policy that prohibits acceptance of advertising that deals with issues of public controversy. This particular ad, in and of itself, is fine. It thanks the troops for their action overseas. We asked them to eliminate a URL address where a person is asked to contact elected officials and told not to cut and run on the war on terror." "It's a long-term policy, it goes back decades."
Interestingly, the ad is part of a seven-figure campaign according to the Associated Press with spots running on CNN, the Fox News Channel and in newspapers such as the New York Times.
This leads me to my question about all of this. Do you think NBC is right in requiring Freedom's Watch to remove their URL due to their political agenda that was not directly discussed in the ad? Do you think Freedom's Watch refused to remove the URL because they thought they would draw more media attention by refusing to remove it as NBC claims? It does seem suspicious that all of this is breaking news on Pearl Harbor Day. On the other hand, is this just another example of the political ties behind television networks and news media?
It's an interesting argument. I think a case could be made for all sides here. However, since this is a marketing blog, I'm going to look at this issue not from a political viewpoint but from a marketing viewpoint only. With that in mind, I'm going to say I think the ad should not be censored. There are many ads that deal with "issues of public controversy," and I'm sure many of them appear on NBC. Wouldn't every ad from every political candidate fall into that category? I'm also thinking of companies that participate in controversial political and business activities behind the scenes. Should their ads be censored or rejected, too? I agree that NBC has the right to pick and choose which ads they will accept to run on their network, but it seems strange to reject an ad that thanks U.S. Troops because of a URL even if the advertiser's motive behind-the-scenes is to further their own political agenda. It seems like NBC is trying to further their own political agenda by rejecting this ad. Should news media have those kinds of political ties? I think that's the biggest problem in this situation. With that said, it is suspicious that Freedom's Watch is posting letters and petitions to fight the rejection by NBC. To me, that seems like a PR stunt more than a true fight against advertising censorship and the political leanings of NBC and news media overall.
So let's just look at this from a marketing and advertising perspective rather than a political perspective. What do you think of advertising censorship like this? Is it just another example of the political ties of news media or is it coming from a desire to avoid any ads that relate to political controversy? Is NBC being hypocritical or do you think they implement this policy across the board?
If it were just a URL we were talking about, I'd agree with you that it shouldn't be censored. What NBC probably had a bigger problem with is the audio that went along with it, asking people to visit the site for a political purpose.
There's nothing wrong with advertising that the site exists and thanking the troops, but Freedom's Watch made it controversial with the comment about the war and cutting/running. We have laws to protect political speech when it comes from a candidate for public office, but not fringe partisan groups.
If NBC airs a MoveOn.org ad next week asking people to write their congressman to impeach President Bush, then they're hypocrites and this whole argument was just blowing smoke, but it probably is a long-standing policy and in my opinion they're right to enforce it.
Posted by: Jeremy | December 12, 2007 8:22 AM | Permalink to Comment