Our company doesn't support the content of this ays...

Submitted by Interesting-Stop-920 t3_yi2g5v in pittsburgh

Yes you most certainly do. If you take money from another company or in this case a politician then you are supporting their ideals. If not you wouldn't take their money. Most content creators I follow are very picky about who sponsors them. And radio stations like KDKA, WDVE AND WXDX taking money to air anti trans politician ads means you're supporting that platform full stop. Stop trying to hide your greed and be outed for the bullshit.

Here is the ad in question: https://www.wesa.fm/identity-community/2022-10-27/group-led-by-former-trump-adviser-runs-anti-trans-political-ads-on-pittsburgh-radio-stations

It's not endorsing a candidate it's pushing legislation and agendas. And I'm not here to call in consequences, I'm saying if they lose viewership too bad. You took their money so you support the message.

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Cryptic_Skies t1_iuhlo31 wrote

stations that utilize public airwaves are regulated by the fcc and are not allowed by law to deny political ads.

27

chefmarksamson t1_iuhpp01 wrote

Slight caveat to this: stations are required to run ads from political candidates, not third party organizations like PACs. Those aren’t considered political speech, and over-the-air broadcasters can make whatever editorial decisions they wish regarding them. That’s why any ads that aren’t paid for by a specific candidate’s campaign have to say that they’re paid for by “the Democratic Party” or “Keeping Freedom Free Coalition” or “Friends of Dan Dipshit” or something.

9

ZealousParsnip t1_iuhuas6 wrote

Someone being full on outraged while not understanding the reason it has to occur is pretty funny and very representative of reddit

1

Interesting-Stop-920 OP t1_iui1o2a wrote

But what about ads that push agendas being masked as "for candidates""?

−1

ZealousParsnip t1_iui4jv9 wrote

Every political ad pushes an agenda champ.

5

Interesting-Stop-920 OP t1_iui5fez wrote

It wasn't actually a political candidate though it was just a policy commercial

−1

ZealousParsnip t1_iui61rj wrote

You'd need to link the ad so people can see what you are actually complaining about. Or just stop frequenting the business. No need to run to Reddit because you had to hear something you didn't like.

Trans issues are part of the politics at the moment. You'll just have to learn to live with that.

0

Interesting-Stop-920 OP t1_iui94pi wrote

It was a radio ad so not able to link and it's been talked about a lot in the LGBTQ community. Since I don't listen to radio I have to go on what others are saying. I did stop any radio listening to entirely. It's my1st amendment right to our them on blast for it if I really wanted to but that wasn't the point of this post.

−1

ZealousParsnip t1_iuigt5s wrote

Wait, so you came to Reddit to whine about an ad you didn't even hear?

4

Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer t1_iuhhfni wrote

Sounds mighty authoritarian of you.

If you think it's dangerous they can voice their opinion, think how much more dangerous it would be to set the precedent for them to prevent you from voicing yours

Power is not a zero sum game. Expect to wear the shackles you wield.

9

chefmarksamson t1_iuhq3hn wrote

I didn’t see the part of their post that said there should be a law making it illegal for radio stations to run ads they don’t like. Where was that? It looked to me like they were just saying they personally hold stations responsible for the content of the ads they run. That’s..kind of the opposite of authoritarianism, actually.

4

kashmir772 t1_iuhllfn wrote

They never said that they can’t run those ads. Just that they can’t run those ads and then claim that isn’t their position. If you are a company and you allow a hateful message to be associated with you, expect the people affected by that hate to be angry with you. Expected those people to no longer support that company and to speak out against that company because of their association with hate. There is nothing authoritarian about that. Just capitalism.

3

JustYourNeighbor t1_iuhlcr0 wrote

Woosh

That's the sound of "the point" going right over your head.

−3

Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer t1_iuhpqk9 wrote

If there's a point I'm missing here, it isn't a good one. I don't like people who advocate for the silencing of others.

Suggesting consequences to media outlets that carry campaign ads you don't like is advocating for exactly that.

2

Interesting-Stop-920 OP t1_iuhu0bp wrote

They shouldn't be punished, freedom of speech exists. But don't get upset if your userbase gets upset and stops using your service.

4

Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer t1_iui3dhq wrote

I didn't say punished, I said you believe they should have consequences. I disagree. I may not like what is said by people on the left side of the aisle, but I do not think their should be consequences for running their ads. This polarization is not sustainable and people need to knock it off. Just get spotify if you can't stand to hear ads on the radio, and watch Netflix or HBO if you can't stand them on TV. Or just get thicker skin. That's the best alternative honestly. A little thick skin goes a long way.

2

Interesting-Stop-920 OP t1_iui5o8i wrote

So I don't listen to the radio myself. It's not about having thick skin, trust me I do. It's about airing political ads not tied to a candidate. But also, as for consequences I'm talking about listeners choosing to stop listening to them. They can't cry and be like, but we don't support that anti trans legislation but we took money to air it. Sorry, but I'd you lose listeners that's on you.

−1

burritoace t1_iuieh6z wrote

Your position here basically ends up in the exact same spot - accusing everyone who expresses an opinion you disagree with of trying to "silence" others is just another way to stop people from expressing that opinion. You can't claim to hold the high ground when you're doing the same thing!

0

Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer t1_iuip4yb wrote

I think they should be welcome to share their bad opinion, and I'm not going to boycott or blame a platform that allows them to do so. Instead, I'm going to engage with them and tell them why they are wrong. It's not the same thing as saying Reddit can't let people share bad opinions and claim they don't represent those opinions.

1

burritoace t1_iuiy5mw wrote

Are you intentionally misreading the original post? It is directly engaging with the ad and doesn't call for a boycott at all. It is no different in degree from what you are doing here.

0

YeahIveDoneThat t1_iuhnci1 wrote

Tell me you don't understand election law without telling me.

9

Interesting-Stop-920 OP t1_iui1lla wrote

The problem is, they are using these laws to push for anti trans and gay bills. By saying it's for the election.

−1

YeahIveDoneThat t1_iui84cx wrote

Can you give an example? I try to not watch TV so I don't see these or any other ads. Generally speaking though, I'm not about suppressing speech even when I disagree with it. Is someone allowed to advocated for bills of that variety? Yeah. Do I like those bills? No. That's the cost of not living in a dictatorship though.

2

Interesting-Stop-920 OP t1_iui9a2h wrote

I at no point suggested suppression. I simply said if listeners stopped listening don't hide behind "we don't support the message just wanted the money"

2

YeahIveDoneThat t1_iui9y0f wrote

Yes, but as we mentioned, they are required to give access to political messaging without having to cosign support for it. You can have broadcast companies choosing what party's messaging gets airtime and which doesn't. The reason is because that could be used to suppress speech, as I said.

2

leadfoot9 t1_iuhnuee wrote

The disclaimer is mostly intended for if something controversial unknowingly slips past scrutiny. If you see companies blatantly allowing bad actor advertisers, they are totally complicit.

8

gldmj5 t1_iuiozqu wrote

I don't know how anyone listens to the radio anymore anyways. It's like 90% commercials, then when the DJ finally comes back on, they do more "live read" ads.

3