CNN and Freedom of Speech

Here's the latest on the Obama/Abortion Ad that NBC wouldn't run on Super Bowl night. See video below:
We have been quieter than usual the past two weeks for good reason. Following NBC's refusal to air our ad during the Super Bowl, we received some great feedback from our members on what we should do next. The consensus was that our latest ad should be broadcast following President Obama's first State of the Union Address -- scheduled for next Tuesday.

So we contacted CNN, thinking their audience contains precisely the type of people we want to reach. Further, given CNN's track record of running advocacy ads, we were confident we would succeed. Not so.

For the past two weeks, we have been pushing and prodding them for an answer. And late this week we finally got a response: No way.

A representative from CNN wrote: "Thank you for your patience. We have decided to pass on this creative. CNN doesn't accept advocacy ads that portray personal decisions in a manner that suggests a position in favor of the advocacy message, without having permission of the persons involved."

This is absurd. Our ad does not suggest that Barack Obama is pro-life. Instead, our ad presents nothing but facts. President Obama, like every human being, began as an unborn child. Because he was born, he was able to become the President of the United States.

CNN and others simply don't like the obvious conclusion of our ad - there was no ‘choice' for abortion back in 1961. Thankfully, we had laws then safeguarding unborn children -- laws that protected the life of a future president who tragically is unwilling to fight for those same protections today.

But wait. Is this fair?

The standard CNN used to reject our ad did not prevent the network from airing a 2005 ad sponsored by the pro-abortion group NARAL that suggested that then Judge John Roberts supported violence against abortion clinics.

FactCheck.org described the NARAL ad this way: "An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers ‘supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber' and of having an ideology that ‘leads him to excuse violence against other Americans' It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham, Alabama. The ad is false.'"

Several prominent pro-abortion supporters condemned the ad, including President Clinton's Solicitor General Walter Dellinger. The commercial, which attributed views to John Roberts that were not his, was ultimately pulled from the air not by CNN, but by NARAL.

At the time CNN issued a statement saying: "CNN accepts advocacy advertising from responsible groups from across the political spectrum who wish to express their views and their opinions about issues of public importance."

CNN is willing to run ads insinuating that a federal judge supports violent criminal activity, but it won't allow an ad celebrating the potential of all human life, including Barack Obama? Not to mention, we are fairly sure NARAL didn't get permission from John Roberts to run their ad.

If you want to express your concerns, please do so firmly, but charitably. You can write CNN President Jonathan Klein at jonathan.klein@cnn.com

So what now?

We aren't going to sit back and complain. We are still looking at several additional options to air the ad. We are also working on our next ad, and have set our sights high once again.

If you liked what we have done so far, we are confident you will be excited about what is coming next.


Brian Burch
CatholicVote.org



P.S. I discussed the decision by CNN to reject our recent ad with an executive of a prominent commercial ad agency. He said bluntly: "Their excuse is a textbook answer for a network that does not want to run your ad."

Of course, all is not lost. CNN's refusal will only create more attention for our ad, which has been widely discussed even among abortion groups like NARAL and nationally-syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman. The ad remains a viral hit on the Internet with over 1.6 million views on YouTube.

We have successfully provoked a national conversation about the gift of every human life -- which is why we created the ad to begin with.

Rest assured, we are working hard on the next phase of this campaign. Thank you for your continued prayers and support.

Hollywood Should Pledge Its Money Where Its Collective Mouth Is

Don't know who Brett Joshpe is but he's got a GREAT idea.

by Brett Joshpe

Go to YouTube and type in, “I Pledge” for the latest insufferably, self-important pat on its own back courtesy of Hollywood. The video montage is Tinsletown’s way of pledging fidelity to Barack Obama and letting him know that…”You’re Not Alone!” Because while Iran scurries to acquire a nuclear weapon and the economy falters, Demi Moore pledges to smile more (and “to be a servant to our President”), Eva Longoria pledges to laugh more, Cameron Diaz pledges to learn her neighbors’ names, and Jason Bateman pledges to save the planet by only flushing after a deuce. Give Barack Obama credit for one thing: he seems to have woken the consciousness of an entire class of people who are out of touch and inspired them to demonstrate how they are completely and utterly out of touch.

But heck, Hollywood, good for you guys. You have finally realized that you are Americans too, and you can once again attend overseas premieres with pride, rather than the shame of citizenship under the Bush administration. While you are at it, maybe you could pledge to make Khalid Sheikh Mohammed smile and love more too. That guy could use a hug and an environmentally friendly toilet. And since you are looking to pitch in now and to “turn the lights off,” “trade in your obnoxious car and buy a hybrid,” and “drive slower,” I have a few other ideas for how you might be able to help. Please, forgive me if these suggestions may seem a little punitive, perhaps counter-productive, but this is a time for sacrifice and a time to embrace the collective, selfless philosophy of Democrats and The One.

Until Republicans acted this week, the Senate was actually prepared to bestow hundreds of millions of dollars of stimulation for Hollywood. The “Hollywood clause” would have given movie studios special tax breaks and enabled them to depreciate the costs of production equipment at a quicker rate. Perhaps, however, Congress should consider reinserting that provision. Doing so would give us the perfect excuse to impose the types of compensation controls on the movie industry that President Obama is now demanding of other industries who receive federal help.

Unlike the greedy Wall Street executives though, who have torpedoed our economy by allowing federal bureaucrats to bludgeon them into making bad loans, Hollywood would surely understand the merit of pay caps. After all, it would enable the entertainment world to fulfill its pledge “to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.” (Cut for laughter and gagging and take two!)

But seriously, for the people who are leading the environmental movement and spearheading efforts to turn the Academy Awards green, cut back on the number of SUV’s in their entourage, and demonstrate frugality to Al Gore, this is such a great opportunity to demonstrate restraint and help out the new President. What better way to show solidarity with Democrats who want to impose a command and control economy and to confiscate wealth from the rich. Especially since everyone needs to make sacrifices right now. Not to worry though, Steven Spielberg and crew, it will feel patriotic.

As such, we should cap the compensation that movie studios and Silver Screen stars make, particularly given the wealth disparities between the actors and actresses and the grips, stagehands, and extras. While there will be times for profits, this is not that time, especially when people are losing jobs and the Golden State’s $40 billion budget deficit is bigger than most countries’ total economic GDP.

It so refreshing to see Hollywood stars embracing this new America. They are just in time to put their dollars where their mouths are and to start fulfilling their pledge.

Ah, Yes, San Fran Nan

From the Denver Post

In October 2008, Nancy Pelosi had this to say:

“Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if the Democrats win and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan.”

Today, Pelosi said this:

“Washington seems consumed in the process argument of bipartisanship, when the rest of the country says they need this bill.”

Change.

Jake Tapper, You Da Man!

Unintended Consequences

Hmmm. Turns out that those who identify with the environment the strongest tend to imperil it the most, by where they choose to live. Dean Bill Chameides of the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke says,

Sometimes going green is counterproductive. Think corn ethanol. Or the new super-high mileage, low-cost car in India by Tata Motors. It may lead to more pollution by making it possible for millions of people to afford a car. Even more surprising is a recent study that concludes: people who identify strongest with the environment may imperil it the most — by where they choose to live.

Researcher M. Nils Peterson and colleagues compiled data from more than 400 households in the Teton Valley (of Wyoming and Idaho), arguably one of the country's most breathtaking areas, to gauge whether there is a consistent relationship between people’s attitudes about the environment and their behavior when it comes to deciding where to live.

The researchers, whose study was published in Conservation Biology, found that people who valued nature the most overwhelmingly chose to live in natural, relatively undeveloped areas. This, in spite of the fact that that choice eats away at the heart of what made them attractive in the first place – by placing natural, functioning ecosystems and the plants and animals that depend on them at risk from bulldozers and all that they bring.

Once the researchers compiled this data with other demographic information the picture became bleaker.

The people who valued nature the most also tended to be somewhat older and more educated and have smaller households. In contrast, somewhat younger, less educated people, to whom the environment was of less consequence, chose to live in established neighborhoods. These locations, ironically, had little direct impact on surrounding natural ecosystems. While there also appears to be a correlation between higher income and those choosing to live in natural areas, the study concluded that education more than wealth was the driver of this correlation (i.e., statistically speaking, wealthier people tend to be more educated).

So what is going on here? Why would people who care most about the environment (and, in light of their educational backgrounds, probably best understand the importance of leaving precious ecosystems undisturbed) choose to live in and thus disrupt those very same ecosystems?

Perhaps they believe that development is inevitable and they would be better stewards than others. Perhaps they think their little incursion into Mother Nature’s land is insignificant in the great scheme of things. Or perhaps they figure some development of pristine areas is okay, as long as it is done responsibly – in the same way that proper management of forests can maximize forest production.

The researchers conclude that their unexpected findings "demonstrate a need for environmentalists to make household location decisions that reflect their environmental attitudes."