Skip to comments.TV NETWOKS CENSOR POLITICAL ADS of Animated Obama, Bernanke for being “Too Political”
Posted on 12/04/2011 3:22:00 PM PST by geraldmcg
Major television broadcast and cable TV networks have refused to air ads of animated Obama and Bernanke characters, on grounds that they were too political.
Google TV has broken this censorship of the ads by the old establishment media, making it possible for DISH and DirecTV to begin airing the ads.
The two provocative commercials were developed by Swiss America Trading Corp., a national investment firm that was clever enough to do an end run around the networks by going through Google whose contract with DISH and DirecTV satellite networks resulted in the scheduled airing of the ads on Monday, Dec. 4-- on the very networks that turned them down!
The first commercial, titled PAT BOONE DEFLATES THE INFLATOCRACY, features Boone challenging Bernanke and Obama as they unleash their 2012 Stimulus Plan by bombing New York City with armloads of $100 bills from a hot air balloon over Central Park.
The second ad, WHAT'S REALLY INSIDE FORT KNOX, humorously asks why the U.S. Government and Federal Reserve have for 40 years refused congressional and other requests for an independent audit of the contents of America's national gold repository.
WATCH THE BANNED VIDEOS:
(Excerpt) Read more at 888webtoday.com ...
Political ads being TOO political. What will they think of next?
Perhaps the networks should describe the standard for “just political enough.”
The 1st amendment is there to protect the right to watch pornography, doncha know.
Sounds like the networks have designed some kind of “Goldilocks” rating technique for ads.
It would make more sense to sensor the news for being too political.
They aren’t even political ads.
Good one -
This is a society with “The View” on national network TV every day.
ONLY the media are allowed to be political.
This is just censorship.
Banning political ads because they are too political would be as ludicrous as The Free Republic banning posts because they were too free or too constitutional.
For that matter it would be difficult to have enough evidence to convict most network news outlets or being guilty of reporting too much news.