Adwatch: DSCC Goes Negative in Montana

by Jonathan Singer, Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:44:42 AM EDT

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has just gone up with a blistering new ad in Montana that the Helena Independent Air reports "could be too vulgar for broadcast television" according to the Montana Broadcasters Association. See for yourself.

The folks at The Hotline write, "Ads like these work." I tend to agree. The ad is catchy, dissimilar to others I have seen this cycle and, best of all, uses Burns' own words to make the case against his candidacy.

Now some Montana broadcasters do not like the ads, claiming concern that the language used (quoting the Senator saying "piss-poor" and "God-damned") could run afoul of FCC regulations. Whether they are actually concerned about fines or do not want to offend those currently in power is not clear to me. Greg MacDonald, who as President of the association warned his members "to pull the spot or check with attorneys before airing it,"donated money to a PAC back in March that has given Sen. Burns more than $17,000 this cycle. Of course that could all be coincidence, and no one would suggest that MacDonald has sway over the National Association of Broadcasters Television and Radio PAC. But the fact remains that MacDonald gave his first large federal campaign contribution at least in several cycles and perhaps ever to a PAC very supportive of Sen. Burns and then turned around and cried foul when negative ads were run against the Senator.

I think the ad should stand. And if the voters of Montana are unhappy with the language used, they should fire the person who used them -- Conrad Burns.

Tags: Adwatch, DSCC, Montana, MT-Sen, Senate 2006 (all tags)

Comments

31 Comments

Sort by

permalink

I think broadcasters have a legitimate fear...

...of getting criticized and fined for airing the ad.

I like the ad. I think it should air. I agree that Burns' own words are fair game to use in public, even when they're vulgar.

But if I run a Montana TV station, I'm thinking about the public and governmental overreaction to Janet Jackson's boob, and everything that followed, and I don't want to be attacked for running an ad that uses profane language.

So I don't blame that guy for saying TV stations should be careful. I, too, feared when I first saw the ad online, yesterday, that it might not get aired because of the language. I want it aired, but then I'll be goddamned pissed at the DSCC if it ends up that the DSCC spent money airing a great ad that no one ends up seeing.

by DCCyclone 2006-09-21 08:53AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I think broadcasters have a legitimate fear...

I heard PBS talking about this when they were going to air the Iraq documentary. I don't remember the specific dollar figures, but the potential fine was insane. It could have put PBS out of business for good. So, if you are a locally-owned broadcaster, or a small-market broadcaster and you get whacked by the Bush Admin's FCC for running an anti-Republican ad, what are you going to do?

p.s. I love this frickin' ad. It rocks.

by Robert P 2006-09-21 10:03AM | 0 recs

permalink

as I understand

the new FCC laws, the "individual broadcaster" is responsible for paying the fines, in other words the actual person who uttered the words.

So wouldn't that mean that the one responsible would be... Burns?

Also, the ATTENTION about the ad is a positive even if it never airs, don't you think?

by dday 2006-09-21 09:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: as I understand

there's no voice of Conrad Burns in this ad, only a (presumably) paid voiceover actor, and the attribution at the end clearly says DSCC.

Strange to run this ad in a race with a so-called Populist candidate. I think it brings down the whole tone and level of Tester's campaign - bad move.

by brooklyngreenie 2006-09-21 09:32AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: as I understand

the voice is repeating his word- and besides the law needs to be challenged as unconstitutional under the first amendment anyway. no law should be in place that prevents a candidate from pointing out the actual words of another candidate. if this is not the speech that the first amendment is meant to protect, then the first amendment no longer has any meaningt whatsoever.

by bruh21 2006-09-21 09:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: as I understand

Regulations regarding the decency of speech broadcast during the family hour are constitutional, or do you think it'd be cool to see Dwight Schrute drop the F-bomb?

by Adam B 2006-09-21 12:10PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: as I understand

For the record, I think it would be awesome to see Dwight Schrute drop the F-bomb.

Interesting trivia I just learned from the DVD commentary - appearently in some locations, a couple parts of the episode "Sexual Harassment" were actually not shown in some locations (specifically, when Michael says "boner" and where Dwight asks about the location of the clitoris).

by fwiffo 2006-09-21 06:12PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: as I understand

they are constitutional within limits. they already use the word "god damn" on tv now- they would have to come up with some pretty interesting analysis as to why its not okay in this case, but it is okay in others. they also already use the word piss on tv.

by bruh21 2006-09-22 03:28AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Adwatch: DSCC Goes Negative in Montana

Saying bad things ABOUT oppnents is negative campaigning, but simply quoting them isn't.

by Sitkah 2006-09-21 09:11AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Adwatch: DSCC Goes Negative in Montana

There seems to be an easy test. Did the TV stations use Burns's words when they were in the news last month?

by drlimerick 2006-09-21 09:13AM | 0 recs

permalink

If the ad is pulled...

put out PR saying that the ad was pulled because of Burns's foul language.

by ChgoSteve 2006-09-21 09:24AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If the ad is pulled...

exactly. You can get lots of free media from the "controversy" this ad creates. The only reason it's controversial is because of the foul language, all the Dems need to do is put the blame on the US Senator using the foul language against those helping Montanans.

by Fran for Dean 2006-09-21 09:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

Why not just bleep

the specific words? Folks will get the idea. And they may even think the words are worse than they are.

by David in NY 2006-09-21 09:29AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why not just bleep

I agree with this comment. I don't think it's a good idea to use the word "God-damned" in our commercials. Just because Burns is a potty mouth doesn't mean it makes us look good to do it on prime-time TV. They should have bleeped out the words "piss" and "god-damned." And maybe written "p**" and "g* d***" on the screen. I don't mind hearing a curse word on TV but there are some people who really do, and I see no reason not to respect their sensitivities.

by tjekanefir 2006-09-21 09:53AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why not just bleep

Er, the formatting's all messy, but what I wanted was "p__ poor" and "g_ d__". You get the idea.

by tjekanefir 2006-09-21 09:54AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why not just bleep

I don't think its a good idea to insulate the American voter from the choice they are making- your argument does that to the extent we pretend this is not who Conrad Burns is.

by bruh21 2006-09-21 09:56AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Adwatch: DSCC Goes Negative in Montana

it's fine....good enough for Burns to say it's good enough for Montanans to hear.

by Chavez100 2006-09-21 09:35AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Adwatch: DSCC Goes Negative in Montana

How about running the ad with the graphics, but putting bleeps over Burn's fould words?

That will probably grab the attention of viewers better anyway.

by Sitkah 2006-09-21 09:37AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Adwatch: DSCC Goes Negative in Montana

No- I think the ad should run exactly as it is. I have a really big problem with the idea that the Democrats should be censoring their ads to fit with peo feeling "offended." This is political speech - the first and foremost reason- the founders created the 1st amendment. The idea that we are going to prevent the American voter from hearing the truth about what their leaders think and do- is a) bizzare and b) screwed up. THe Republicans are the only ones who can win in a situation in which we don't use their own words to show the voters what they stand for. For me at least, there are some bright lines in the sand- voting is one, free speech is another. This firmly falls under free speech, and more importantly, it firmly falls under where public open honest political discourse should be. In the film THis Film Is Not Yet Rated- one of the issues that a documentarian had when he covered iraq was that they wanted to rate the movie R (and therefore it couldnt be seen in schools) because of language. I had a chance to listen to the documentary film maker- he was like what esle do we have speech for in this country? If kids cannot see the real effects of war, or in this case, if the voters cant see who their choice for candidates really are- then the concept of free speech is sham.

by bruh21 2006-09-21 09:55AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Adwatch: DSCC Goes Negative in Montana

Would you bleep: God or damned or piss or poor?

by marksist 2006-09-21 09:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Adwatch: DSCC Goes Negative in Montana

To: David in NY

by marksist 2006-09-21 09:44AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Adwatch: DSCC Goes Negative in Montana

Would you bleep: God or damned or piss or poor?

Both.

"They did a BLEEEEP poor job"

"He's not doing a BLEEEEP thing.

It's like putting the bleep in Johnny Cash's song "A Boy Named Sue." It got the song more airplay than the using the real word would have.

The ad will zing Burns more if it becomes a running joke on him.

by Sitkah 2006-09-21 11:27AM | 0 recs

permalink

I thought newsworthy subject were protected speech

Or were my professors doing a "piss poor" job?

by jcjcjc 2006-09-21 09:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: protected speech

more like political speech of which this is first and foremost protected speech. I mentioned upthread meeting this documentarian who was intereviewed in this film "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" who asked pointed rhectorical questions along the same lines- if the world had not seen the images out of the concentration camps in WW2 would that have been a thing just because its offensive? If the American peo hadn't seen the images out of Vietnam with the little girl being burned by napalm would that be a better thing just because its offensive? He kept going down the line of images and speech that shaped debate- and he made his point well. Sometimes- just let peo see the truth, and dont worry if it offends. if they are offended- sometimes that is agood thing- because they will act. I suppose the argumetn is that they willa ct against the Democrats- but then thats why you keep the other side on the offensive about what th ey have done.

by bruh21 2006-09-21 10:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: protected speech

In fact, Dwight Eisenhower, later a Republican President, was insistent that local German villagers see the concentration camps in person without sparing their feelings. Ike felt that was the one way to prevent this from happening again. He was right.

This is something thst should be protected. The issue with Burns is that he does not have much respect for the American working man and that he has too much respect for a few rich, politically connected ranchers. Words have consequences, Conrad. Live with them.

by David Kowalski 2006-09-21 02:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

I'm not aware of a single FCC fine

for the phrase "piss poor" or "g-damned."

by EricJaffa 2006-09-21 10:23AM | 0 recs

permalink

An interesting conundrum

If the media covers the controversy over this ad they will probably have to broadcast it in whole or in parts. That will increase its penetration into the electorate.

But it would be ironic if new channels, when airing the ads as part of a news story, decided to bleep out the "piss-poor" and "God-damned" portions. If they don't, then they risk FCC action. If they do, then they make it sound even worse for Burns since people will fill in the blanks with potentially even worse words.

by Chris Andersen 2006-09-21 01:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Adwatch: DSCC Goes Negative in Montana

I think this ad will prove to be ineffective. People in Montana know what he's said, they either care or they don't, and this ad comes off as kind of a cheap late hit.

by takhallus 2006-09-21 01:39PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Adwatch: DSCC Goes Negative in Montana

Why is the DSCC saying "that's not how we treat people in Montana"? Who's we?

Other than that it's all good. It's an ad that will get a lot of free press, which I think is a good tactic.

by Mullibok 2006-09-21 03:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Adwatch: DSCC Goes Negative in Montana

Who? Obviously Montanans. That's not how we (the people of Illinois) treat Illinoisans, either.

by antiHyde 2006-09-21 06:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Adwatch: DSCC Goes Negative in Montana

I'd say it is an OK ad but not outstanding on its own. It is just another reminder that Mr. Burns is a "piss poor" U.S. Senator who often puts his foot in his mouth.

by Zack from the SFV 2006-09-21 06:43PM | 0 recs