CNN's Bias Exposed....or is it?

I write about many things that are close to my heart; this subject rates in the top five. I do not understand how folks can so easily dismiss another human being who is so innocent, so fragile, so vulnerable. Here is a snippet of a story that cuts to the chase of one media organization's bias towards one side of an issue. They consistently claim objectivity, but the reality is only hidden from the already sold. Please see the following link for the video in question:

www.catholicvote.org

Dear CatholicVote.org Member,

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.

This message was intended for: mikepoast@gmail.com
You were added to the system January 20, 2009. For more information
click here.
Update your preferences | Unsubscribe

No, You Cannot Join My Club!

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
-1ST Amendment to the U.S. Constitution


The right to associate, or to not, has created such a stir that it has caused some lawmakers to force otherwise law abiding citizens to break the law by not sharing air with their disturbing brethren.

It all begins with our general freedom to pretty much do as we please, as long as it does not interfere with another's, as far as it pertains to our person-hood.

We have a general understanding that we are not to be forced by The Federal Government to "associate" our thoughts or our being with anything that is incongruent with our self-actualized identity. Further that we have not the power, through any government or personal conquest, to force others to bend to our thoughts or actions until such a time as we can persuade them on such through the exchange of agreed upon goods, service or due process.

The problem has seemed to have presented itself where some of our fellow citizens have confused the word "association" with the word "acceptance." The Freedom to acceptance exists nowhere in The United States Constitution. You are free to disassociate yourself with my thoughts and properties, just as I am free to run away screaming from yours. You have the freedom and the right to organize a large group of supporters to stand up for your right to be you just as I am to create the same to denigrate you doing so. The critical line is drawn at me forcing you, through the power of government, to shut your mouth on either side of the equation.

What seems to have happened is that we have become lazy and have come to a general conclusion (not legal) that those things, with which we do not agree that make us uncomfortable, are included in this protection. They are not, and never were. One of the most fundamental protections of The First Amendment is the right to be unpopular or wrong. This includes being hateful or counter-cultural. It also includes being traditional, religious or old-fashioned.

I think it is important to recognize that while you may not agree with who I am, I may not agree with who you are and that neither of us has the right to empower our government to force us to see it any differently.

The Right Wing View on Unwanted Pregnancy

I post a lot of very hotly debated topics on my blog and on Face Book because I see a great deal on confusion in them. Consequently we never get past the emotions of any one particular issue which leaves us to make decisions at the ballot box with lacking or faulty information. I know none of us wants to do this, so I try to crate debate and open conversation whenever I can.

Recently a friend asked what I thought, specifically, about the issue of unwanted pregnency. I truely appreciate his candor in the question and was happy to divulge my belifes on the subject, of course backed up with facts.

I do not have his permission to post this, so I will not give his name.

Feel free to add what you think is missing..

"So the right wing view is... "You have to have this severely deformed child no one will adopt and you cannot afford and no, we will not provide any assistance in raising it because it is your own fault because you did not learn about birth control on your own because sex education shouldn't be taught in school and your parents were absent because law makers were influenced by a religion which we are "free" not to subscribe too"? I'm not sure, but sometimes I think I hear this."

First off I do not think you will find many conservatives who would say that they are against helping a struggling single mother to raise her child. You have a multitude of social aspects that lead us to the circumstance that you purport. I think you would agree that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for it to go down exactly as you have suggested. Public policy must be made on reality. I cannot speak for all but the general thought is that situations like the one you have described are first off better handled by the charity/private sector in the community as they are closer to the person and most likely know the details of the lives we are talking about. Secondly, if government is to get involved, it is best handled at the local and state levels. Nowhere in The Constitution does it provide Congress with the power, or authority, to meddle in such things. State and local governments have way more latitude in these areas.

Second, on the "unwanted/deformed child" argument; I do not know when it came to be considered good policy that an individual's unalienable right to live depend upon somebody else wanting them. Better watch out for the application of the equal protection clause of The 14th Amendment because you and I are next, as I am sure someone doesn't want us‼ I do not think that anyone would argue with Planned Parenthood’s slogan “every child is a wanted child,” but the idea that another human being’s right to life is contingent upon another human being’s deeming them “wanted,” reminds me of Hitler’s Germany. Remember that anyone who was not “Aryan” was not “wanted.” If you do not want a child…do not have sex. Why is the decision not to have sex beyond the ability of some, but the decision to have an abortion completely OK?

Third, your adoption argument: In 2006 there were 200,000 couples who wanted to adopt and only 25,000 babies available for adoption. I do not have current #’s but the point is that there are many more “parents” who want to adopt, who are forced to go to foreign countries, than babies available. Further, most abortions occur as a result of misused, or not used, or failed contraceptives. So we are removing the need for the responsible thinking that should always precede these decisions because we are removing all consequences.

Fourth, sex education should not be taught in a one-size-fits-all fashion. This whole debate brings us back to school choice and the need for the principal of federalism. State and local governments should deal with education, not The Federal government. There is no clause in The Constitution giving The Federal Government this power. If this were the case then you and I would choose schools for our children where this subject was taught in a manner in keeping with our belief system. I no more want to force you to believe what I believe than you do me or any one so let’s stop empowering The Federal Government to force our beliefs on others!!

Zucker: Republican is "the new gay"

I have consistently said that the straight-Christian-white-Conservative-male is the only "group" left who hasn't demanded special treatment from the law and is the only one which can be openly bashed and discriminated against while people laugh on the side-lines. I don't want special treatment here, I just think the hypocrisy is blinding.

read more | digg story