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

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

New Life On Earth Baby!!

Well, life that we didn't know about anyway. Several thoughts popped into my mind while I was reading... Why is it that humans are always referred to as disturbing the delicate animal life by the same folks who claim that we are just very distant cousins of the same? Can't we all get along? Just curious..also, do you think that it is possible for some of these folks to start looking at other animals to determine if they too are guilty of overpopulation? I doubt it. Lastly, hypothetically of course, if it were possible for humans to have been around when the dinosaurs were here (no Palin jokes please) would we be at fault for that too?Sorry one last thing...you do realize that the only reason that a government is ever interested in anything is if it will lead them to more power.

read more | digg story

Look Before You Judge...or Pope Paul IV Was Right!

Who the hell am I? I mean i don't know everything, even though I am very sure of quite a bit. The world is a crazy place and it is extremely difficult to know who to believe. For me, track record says a lot. If what you say pans out I am going to listen up a little more the next time you have something to say; just makes sense right?

Well Pope Paul IV had something to say 40 years ago, and you could argue that it's all coincidence, that's fine. You should look into it though.

Forty years after "Humane Vitae"

BY FATHER PETER J. DALY

There was an eruption in the Catholic Church 40 years ago over the release of Pope Paul VI's encyclical letter Humanae Vitae ("Of Human Life").

At the time, secular culture pronounced it a "dead letter." Cultural critics said the church was out of touch with the modern age on the role of human sexuality.

"Humanae Vitae" was blamed for the erosion of respect for the church's moral teaching and the departure of many people from the Catholic Church.

But, at the time, secular culture made some pretty extravagant claims for the virtues of artificial contraception. Forty years on, it is worth asking: What about the claims of secular culture? Were they right?

Happier marriages?
The first birth control pill came on the market in the early 1960s. It was featured on the cover of news magazines. It was talked about on television. People said it would usher in a new and happier age of sexual relations.

Did it?

Forty years ago it was said that artificial contraception would make marriages happier and more stable. Freed from the stress of many children, married couples would be better able to concentrate on each other and their marriage.

So what happened?
The divorce rate has skyrocketed. Marriages are less stable. There were many cultural factors involved, of course, but whatever can be said about birth control, it has not made marriages happier or more stable in U.S. culture.

Forty years ago it was said that the pill would mean more fulfilled sex lives. People could be more spontaneous. Sex would be more joyful. People would be less repressed.

Did it happen?

Separating the sexual act from conception has degraded the meaning of sex, caused it to lose its significance. Instead of being special, a sign of love and commitment reserved for husbands and wives, it is now commonplace.
When something becomes commonplace it loses its allure. Ice cream and cake, for example, are special if reserved for birthdays. If eaten all the time, they are boring, even damaging.

Anti-child mentality
The pill has meant that sex is meaningless, the stuff of sit-coms and lurid talk shows.
In our modern world sex has nothing to do with making babies. It also has very little to do with making love. The surreal "Sex in the City" world has turned everyone into a sex object, because sex is seen as an act without meaning or consequence. It has more to do with giving pleasure to the self than showing love for the other.

Forty years ago the advocates for contraception said that it would mean fewer unwanted children. There would be less child abuse and neglect because children would be more wanted since they were more "planned."

Ironically, today children seem less wanted. They are seen not as gifts from God but as financial burdens. Television reporters do stories on the "total cost" of raising a child as if children could be compared to buying a boat or second home.

With the ability to prevent pregnancy came the presumption that you should prevent pregnancy. Babies are now regarded as a burden. Large families are regarded with derision even in Catholic circles.

Birth control has led to an anti-child mentality.

When a woman today begins to show with a third or fourth pregnancy, people ask her, "Did you make a mistake, dear?"

Forty years ago there was an explosion in the church over "Humanae Vitae." Now that the dust has begun to settle a bit, it seems that secular culture was wrong about many of its claims for birth control.

It helps to take the long view. Maybe that is God's view?

Catholic News Service

Father Peter J. Daly writes on church life from his parish, St. John Vianney in Prince Frederick, Md. He may be contacted at cns@Catholicnews.com.

Why Africa Is Still Starving

Las Vegas is a desert too, and they are doing quite well. It looks as though they had something positive going and then Congress decided to put our corn into our gas!! Do-gooders never do, they just look like it!! Markets never lie people...until someone restricts them!!

read more | digg story

Obama on Clarence Thomas - WSJ.com

This would be funny, if it were not so very serious. "Delos" also makes a great point, by mentioning that McCain didn't vote against any of those he named when he had the opportunity. However, I must also point out that The President nominating and The Senate confirming require two different levels of agreement. The former usually means a complete agreement with the jurist's philosophy, while the later is simply a "stamp of approval" which is to ensure that The Justice is not a complete buffoon.It is only recently that the nomination process for The Supreme Court became such a difficult and contentious process. Though it is something to look at, I would fault Obama's disparaging words more than I would McCain's following of tradition.

read more | digg story

CO2 Doesn't Cause Global Warming?!?!

What will Algore and his socialist buddies do now to control our lives? I mean surely there is some way that he can prove that humans must be removed from the planet!!!

read more | digg story

Why a Black Artist Replaced the National Anthem

What Marie did embodied a plethora of leftist ideals and characteristics: Ethical relativism, multiculturalism, the supremacy of feelings, the belief that artists are above normal ethical standards and group victimization.

read more digg story