Read other letters about this article

• Monday, June 9, 2008 03:17 PM

  The point has been made

  that the broadcast and cable networks and individual stations have been highhandedly refusing to run ads they don't like, calling them "controversial" or failing to meet standards or unlawful or whatever, for many a year now. There's been a lot of howling about it, but very few if any of the ads they've refused have ever been run.

  While it's always useful to make a stink when these things happen, there is a more general policy issue, isn't there?

  It seems to me that Glenn is arguing that Comcast -- and cable outfits generally -- should and do have the right to refuse any ad at any time for any reason.

  They have refused the Carney ads, as is their right per Glenn's own argument. Glenn is now making a stink about it, which is his right. This stink will continue until such time as it doesn't matter any more.

  And then the whole process will start over again, in some other location, over some other ad.

  But at no time will there be any question of 1) Comcast's right to refuse any ad at all for any reason or no reason; 2) Glenn's right or anyone else's right to raise hell over it.

  But wait. How about correcting the problem itself? What gives Comcast the right (which Glenn doesn't dispute) to refuse ads like this, and why is that right tolerated? Isn't Comcast, generally speaking, a monopoly or near monopoly in most markets; isn't it operating under quasi-official authority?

  Cannot the rules under which it operates be changed?

  Just asking.

  —Ché Pasa Read Ché Pasa's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel