And to think, they weren't even calling people commies. They should have retained Glenn to sue. Heh.

Guess what? The networks have every legal right to decline to air ads on whatever subject they feel 'inappropriate'.

That doesn't insulate them from criticism and consequencies that can/should/does result, nor excuse their participation in deliberate misinformation campaigns.

But you already knew that, didn't you, you pile of mulch.

"Comcast reserves a certain fraction of advertising time for local ads on myriad of the stations it carries. Not just local news which reaches a limited audience. Have you never seen an ad for some car dealership in your area while watching, oh, say, The Weather Channel?"

I understand that, Mom. But if a television station which is also carried by Comcast or any other cable provider accepts and runs this ad, would not Comcast be obligated to run that ad as a part of its rebroadcast of that particular station? Unless they used their "reserved" advertising time to replace the offending ad, wouldn't the ad still be carried by Comcast as a part of their rebroadcasting of the local station's programming?

Even if the ad does make it through Comcast's refusal to run the ad directly as part of their "reserved" time, the customers of Comcast should still be able to view the commercial via local channel access.

If that's not the case, I'd like someone to tell me how Comcast can refuse to "air" the ads as provided by one or more of their local channel lineup.

Here are the 2nd-4th graphs of Shooter's article.

The ad, part of the denomination's new, broad identity campaign set to begin airing nationwide on Dec. 1, states that -- like Jesus -- the United Church of Christ (UCC) seeks to welcome all people, regardless of ability, age, race, economic circumstance or sexual orientation.

According to a written explanation from CBS, the United Church of Christ is being denied network access because its ad implies acceptance of gay and lesbian couples -- among other minority constituencies -- and is, therefore, too "controversial."

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations," reads an explanation from CBS, "and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks."

So this was a case of the corporate media capitulating to your brethren, the religious right hypocrites,and bending to the pressures of the powerful. It's still reflects the corruption of media conglomeration and you damn well know it you smug phony bastard.

And it's hardly a stretch to imagine Glenn taking on that case. Heh.

It seems to me that although Comcast's various tentacles may, as you suggest, face different suites of regulation depending on which -- if any -- is technically guilty of a particular transgression, Glenn's overall point is that Comcast's very size, and its consequent domination of critical market segments, acts against the public interest irrespective of its compliance with laws currently on the books.

Even assuming that Comcast -- in part or as a whole -- isn't in violation of any law or regulation in refusing this ad, the situation is as grave as Glenn says it is. If there isn't a law, perhaps there ought to be one. What Glenn is asking seems reasonable enough. People aware of what is going on should demand that whatever needs to be done to reclaim the public interest is done, including -- and this is my opinion, not Glenn's-- the passage of new legislation aimed at preventing a broadcast monopoly from suppressing information it deems inimical to its corporate interest.

Once again, it seems to me that we're back in the grip of the crucial argument between liberals, libertarians and conservatives about the proper role of government in addressing such grievances. Glenn hasn't offered an opinion, nor so far, has Mona. No doubt shooter will come screeching up at some point and say that liberals -- in this case yours truly -- think that government is the solution to every ill. Generally speaking, I don't actually think anything like that, but in this particular case, this particular liberal thinks that maybe a solution does lie in government somewhere, at least in the part which isn't yet owned by Comcast and its benevolent capitalist allies.

I understand that, Mom.

Well, my sweet little boy (whom Mommy loves, ohhh so much) it's like this: I do not know precisely how an entity negotiates the placement of an ad on stations carried by Comcast, including on local TV news stations. However, few want those ads only appearing on KRUD or WASP. Whether those local networks -- to the extent they are carried by Comcast rather than rabbit ears -- may accept all local ads they wish, I do not know. But most regional advertisers want some of the slots on the high-attraction cable channels, such as Fox, CNN, A&E, ESPN, The History Channel & etc. Yet, if Comcast says no, then that is that.

Hugs and kisses,

Ma

...that in ShooterWorld, there would be no World Wide Web, and no forums like these. We'd still be in the era of Frame Relay/ATM networks with no any-to-any connection, and the IP protocol would be a curiosity in the engineering laboratories of universities.

So consider having to listen to Shooter (and you don't really have to, you can ignore him entirely) is simply one side of the coin; the shadows that necessarily come with the light.

I believe that a candidate cannot have ads refused. So someone running for office in any political subdivision of Carney's congressional district could conceivably run the ads.

I was involved in trying to get local cable to run anti war on drugs ads back in the 90s - See this posting from usenet/dejaNews:

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.activism.progressive/browse_thread/thread/a88d200dc484796e/fd62097783d03c43?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#fd62097783d03c43