The double standard for truth-telling by politicians on the Left and the Right has become so ubiquitous that everyone just accepts it as standard operating procedure. Democrats may stretch the truth from time to time, and, like anybody in a debate, select facts and data that support their argument while underemphasizing those that don’t; but Republicans blatantly lie constantly. Yet while the Democrat will be hammered in the media for a slightly skewed assertion, the Republican’s outright fabrication will go unchallenged. This dynamic has again played out with some ads being pulled for “falsifying facts”, while others are allowed to continue to run, despite complaints that they distorted reality.
This week, local CBS affiliate, WCCO, in the Twin Cities decided to pull campaign ads against tea partier Chip Cravaak, freshman representative from Minnesota’s 8th district. The ads, costing $250,000, were supposed to run for two-weeks. They were purchased by the House Majority PAC, an organization dedicated to helping Democrats win control of the House of Representatives. WCCO pulled the ad after the Cravaak campaign wrote a letter and complained to the station about the ad. They said that the content of the ad “defamed” the tea partier. The ad was calling him out for charging constituents to attend one of his “town halls.” Cravaak’s rebuttal is that the money charged was for lunch that was served at the meeting. However, you couldn’t skip lunch; you had to pay for it. So, in essence, it’s true. If you wanted to attend this meeting, you had to pay. Now, if you were being completely objective, you would probably grant that Cravaak had other town hall meetings for which he charged no fee. But since when are campaign ads designed to be objective?
But, this isn’t the first time that a Republican has successfully gotten a station to pull an ad that he didn’t like. Senator Jim DeMint got NBC affiliate, WBCD, in Charleston, SC to pull an ad he didn’t like either. In this case, the ad targeted his history of opposing gay teachers in public schools. In the beginning of the ad in question, a voice asks, “What if you saw this headline [a mocked up newspaper flashes on the screen]: Senator Jim DeMint: Jews Should Not Teach Public School? You wouldn’t tolerate such blatant prejudice and persecution. Substitute the word ‘gay’ and the reality is, you do.” DeMint claimed that the headline made him seem anti-Semitic.
Conversely, Chris Murphy, a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate in Connecticut, had asked for an inaccurate ad to be pulled from NBC-Connecticut and FOX affiliate WTIC. The ad claimed that Murphy was the recipient of more hedge fund money than any other Democrat in Congress. Even the people who put out the ad, his opponent, Republican Susan Bysiewicz, have since admitted it’s not true. But according to the Hartford-Courant, Charles J. Sennet, assistant general counsel for Tribune Co., which owns both WTIC-TV and The Hartford Courant, turned down the Murphy campaign’s request saying, “Under the Communications Act…a television station is forbidden to refuse to broadcast a candidate advertisement based on its content. This is so whether the advertisement is positive or negative and even if it contains falsehoods…Refusing to air the announcement because it is false and misleading would be clearly unlawful under applicable federal law and FCC rules.” Oh really, I guess WCCO in the Twin Cities and WBCD in Charleston didn’t get the memo.
According to the Hartford-Courant, the response to the Murphy campaign was no different from the General Manager of NBC-Connecticut, David Doebler, who said, “The federal law including statutes and [Federal Communications Commission] regulations prohibit the station [from editing] any ads sponsored by legally qualified federal candidates. As the law states, we have to run their ad [and] cannot edit the ad and because that’s the law, we do it by the book.” Not sure why he kept emphasizing editing; Murphy wanted the ad pulled entirely.
So, it seems if a Republican wants an ad pulled because they believe it contains falsehoods, the media doesn’t see any conflict with the Communications Act, federal, or FCC laws, but if a Democrat does, then by God, those laws apply. It’s part of the commonplace pattern of “what’s good for the Republican doesn’t apply for the Democrat.” Romney’s shameless lying about Obama in ads claiming that he lifted the work requirement for welfare, when in fact no such thing occurred continues unabated. On the other hand, when a Democrat PAC ran an ad linking Romney’s policies with their eventual consequences, the much-panned commercial about a man losing his wife to cancer after losing their healthcare following outsourcing-related layoffs, the media pounced. It happened to Obama before during his 2008 campaign when his connection to Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers was constantly the focus of media attention whereas John McCain’s connection to extremist pastors Hagee and Parsley, as well as relationship with G. Gordon Liddy, went largely unreported.
It’s not that uncommon to see a right winger with conservative bumper stickers. One of these states in large letters, “I don’t believe the liberal media.” Of course, liberals know that this notion of a liberal media is a myth. It’s reality that has a liberal bias. Even if Fox News weren’t handy as a ready-made example of ubiquitous right wing media, any thinking person would immediately notice a pattern in Sunday morning political talk shows on both network and cable news where Republicans and conservative pundits dominate the airways.
Of course, it happens across every type of political situation, not just political ads. As Rachel Maddow has explained when she brought the use of IOKYIAR (It’s OK if You’re a Republican) into even broader use, Republicans simply get away with bad behavior, hypocrisy, and extensive lying, while at the same time, milder versions of the same acts by Democrats are clobbered by the media and others. Remarkably, if you Google media, double standard, and Republicans, all you get are articles that allege the bias is against them. It’s like they figure if they throw out the accusation first, people won’t notice that they’ll actually the perpetrators. Will this ridiculous double standard ever be undone? So far, it’s not looking like it.
PoliticusUSA
G+
Facebook
Reynardine
Sep. 24th, 2012 at 10:49 am
The technique, of course, is called DARVO: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. Every abuser does it. But there is more to it than that, and Dr. Robert Lindner referred to it six decades ago, when the press was knuckling under to McCarthyism.
Liberals, even when victorious, seldom punish those who disagree with them. When they do, it generally goes according to established rules and fairness. Right wing authoritarians- the kind passing for “conservatives” these days- are otherwise. Only their leaders can be right, and therefore everyone should obey and praise them. What is being punished is neither untruth nor harm, but *contradiction*. Presstitutes (and the institution of presstitution) know this. Therefore, to hedge their bets, they constantly appease those who will punish or reward them according to their perceived partisanship if they get powered. They sacrifice on the altar of expediency, and what they are ultimately sacrificing is…themselves.
loading...
Reynardine
Sep. 24th, 2012 at 10:56 am
Empowered. More caffeine.
loading...
Deborah Foster
Sep. 24th, 2012 at 11:01 am
You’d think I would have heard presstitutes before, but that’s my first exposure. Did you coin that? Either way, it’s awesome. Very fitting the whole profession nowadays. You’re absolutely right about the DARVO phenomenon. It drives me nuts; I guess no matter where’s it applied, but especially by these right wing hypocrites.
loading...
Reynardine
Sep. 24th, 2012 at 11:12 am
Walter Winchell coined that before WW II. He also coined “swastinker” for an American who sympathized with Nazi principles. After the War, he effectively became those himself, but they are still good coinages.
loading...
Jena Isle
Sep. 24th, 2012 at 10:57 am
Hello Deborah,
I’m not an American but many of my relatives live there. I can’t seem to come to terms with the fact that a champion for democracy such as the U.S. could find it difficult to unite (Democrats and Republicans)and mop out what the country truly needs, instead of virtually bashing each other. Just a thought. Thanks for allowing me to know more about the US politics.
loading...
A Walkaway
Sep. 24th, 2012 at 11:39 am
There is no way that we can unite with the people out to destroy us, which has been shown to be the goal of the Republicans time and time again.
It’s like asking an ex-slave to compromise with his/her previous masters over his/her freedom and their demand for his/her return to servitude. Any compromise means that the slave looses his or her freedom.
That applies in many ways to the conservatives/right/Religious Right.
loading...
Patty
Sep. 24th, 2012 at 11:48 am
Yet the ad against Cravaak’s opponent, Rick Nolan remains running on the same station – although they have run a fact check on it, and it’s a hot mess.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/09/20/reality-check-the-new-anti-rick-nolan-ad/
loading...
Tim
Sep. 24th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
All one needs to do is look at who owns 80% of our media and the reason for imbalance is obvious.
Back to the no rules no regulation discussion. The FCC used to keep company’s from buying up huge markets of the media now it’s a free for all and they set the agenda.
loading...
Mis hijos
Sep. 24th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Barack Obama is a jeanuois. Faux news sucks and obama should just shut them down because they are a bunch of state ran turds
loading...
harris stein
Sep. 24th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
This is nothing new as the sociopaths on the political right have become experts at media manipulation. Just look at Rove and Norquist. Even Carville can’t come close to them.
On a deeper level it is a conflict of interest as media outlets kow tow to politicians on the right fearful that if they don’t do their bidding they will face harsh blowback from those far right politicians when they are elected.
Our political system has become so corrupted with conflicts of interest because of the way our election campaigns are run. Congress won’t pass public financing because it is seen by our representatives as endangering their jobs. The tea party, instead of acting to end these conflicts of interest, makes them worse since they are right wing ideologues and are even more corruptable.
loading...
Alan
Sep. 24th, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Unfortunately, WTIC and its attorney are correct. Broadcast stations must accept any spot from a legally-qualified candidate for Federal office, and may not edit the spot in any way (other than adjusting technical criteria to meet FCC rules). WTIC and Tribune had no choice but to accept and broadcast the Bysiewicz spot exactly as delivered.
On the other hand, third-party commercials (from PAC’s) are not subject to the law, and stations are free to accept or reject those commercials as they deem appropriate. You can make the argument that WCCO should not have pulled the House Majority spot, but legally they were within their discretion. But there’s no double-standard on the part of WCCO unless it can be shown that the station refused a request to pull a PAC spot supporting a Republican. This article does not provide any evidence of that.
There certainly is a double-standard here, but it was created by Congress, not the broadcasters.
loading...
harris stein
Sep. 24th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
You sound like a media lawyer. I’m not denigrating you because you might be a lawyer, but what you are condoning is something called self censorship. This is obviously something that comes out of campaign legal departments by lawyers who have a conflict of interest. That conflict of course comes out of the desire for permanent employment once the campaign is over.
Congress has enabled conflicts of interest by enshrining them in law for the benefit of its members. This is what needs to stop. Until then we will have our representatives, mostly republicans, putting their own interests above the national interests.
loading...