Clear Channel Radio blocks anti gun control ad

Swedish K · Feb 16, 2013

Clear channel radio blocked an anti-gun control ad. Another media corp that needs to be boycotted.

<broken link removed>

Squidly · Feb 16, 2013

So much for un-biased media.

deen_ad · Feb 16, 2013

Swedish K said:
Clear channel radio blocked an anti-gun control ad. Another media corp that needs to be boycotted.

<broken link removed>

GREAT NEWS!!! Would like to see some biased PRO-GUN ads and news!! Rather than the media's anti-gun blitz that's been going on for years now!

Kable · Feb 16, 2013

My dad worked for a radio station (not owned by clear channel) then out of the blue got laid off (he was told they wanted to bring someone who was younger and more hip in despite the fact that he had the #1 radio show in the make in the most important age group to advertisers, he tried to sue for age discrimination buthe was 39 at the time and you have to be at least 40 to qualify for age discrimination... but I digress) he wound up at a clear channel owned station which was the worst in the market. He brought them to number 2 by the next year then clear channel decided to change the format and laid him off. They are your typical money hungry greedy don't care about anyone corporation. I hope there is a boycott over this but clearchannel ownes a lot of media outlets and not just radio.

Ralgha · Feb 16, 2013

deen_ad said:
GREAT NEWS!!! Would like to see some biased PRO-GUN ads and news!! Rather than the media's anti-gun blitz that's been going on for years now!

The title is quite misleading, the blocked ad is actually a pro-gun ad, not a gun control ad.

While I don't think Clear Channel was right to censor it, I also think the ad would not help our case. It would incite the antis and drive the undecideds toward the anti camp. Focus on education, not provocation.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus that ate your iPhone.

Browning55 · Feb 17, 2013

People should complain to the FCC that Clear Channel's censoring of contrasting views and opinions is "contrary to public interest" and violates the terms of their broadcast license.

Clarkie46 · Feb 17, 2013

Ralgha said:
While I don't think Clear Channel was right to censor it, I also think the ad would not help our case. It would incite the antis and drive the undecideds toward the anti camp. Focus on education, not provocation.

I had the same reaction. The ad is unnecessarily provocative. It's like we're "itching for a fight" and that just feeds the media narrative that gun owners are "extremists," and "potential terrorists."

HahnsXD · Feb 17, 2013

Kable said:
My dad worked for a radio station (not owned by clear channel) then out of the blue got laid off (he was told they wanted to bring someone who was younger and more hip in despite the fact that he had the #1 radio show in the make in the most important age group to advertisers, he tried to sue for age discrimination buthe was 39 at the time and you have to be at least 40 to qualify for age discrimination... but I digress) he wound up at a clear channel owned station which was the worst in the market. He brought them to number 2 by the next year then clear channel decided to change the format and laid him off. They are your typical money hungry greedy don't care about anyone corporation. I hope there is a boycott over this but clearchannel ownes a lot of media outlets and not just radio.

Welcome to the radio world. Radio is a barren wasteland. Especially since CBS radio sold their Portland stations to Alpha Broadcasting. Thanks god for smartphones because I try my hardest never to listen to any of that garbage they call radio anymore.

Misterbill · Feb 17, 2013

Just as happy it's not running. This kind of rhetoric does a lot more harm than good.

But I agree, Clear Channel bites.

davef · Feb 17, 2013

Clear channel sucks but this ad sucks more.

Bacchus · Feb 17, 2013

Who did you vote for ?

kumabear17 · Feb 17, 2013

I agree education and thoughtful discussion with people of opposing views is the big picture approach we should be using. I'm confused on where I might go to see some of that. So far all I see is a President who is in my face demonizing me a s a gun owner and you know what, he doesn't seem to be loosing any support on his anti-gun agenda. Maybe people who are pro-gun do need to stand up once and awhile like this ad tries to do. Yes it may offend some people, most certainly those people who already voted for "Zero", but it might also rally people on our side. You guys can go ahead and wait. That's what McCain did and so did Romney. They took the high road. Worked out well for them - and for us - didn't it? Okay, flame away....

Clarkie46 · Feb 18, 2013

kumabear17 said:
I agree education and thoughtful discussion with people of opposing views is the big picture approach we should be using. I'm confused on where I might go to see some of that. So far all I see is a President who is in my face demonizing me a s a gun owner and you know what, he doesn't seem to be loosing any support on his anti-gun agenda. Maybe people who are pro-gun do need to stand up once and awhile like this ad tries to do. Yes it may offend some people, most certainly those people who already voted for "Zero", but it might also rally people on our side. You guys can go ahead and wait. That's what McCain did and so did Romney. They took the high road. Worked out well for them - and for us - didn't it? Okay, flame away....

Not gonna flame you, guy. I agree that McCain and Romney were weak candidates. And I think we do need hard-hitting ads, because most Americans won't sit still long enough for a reasoned argument. We still should make the effort at reasoned argument and education, but I agree that quick ads are more likely to influence more people.

But we can have hard-hitting and effective ads without hinting at a civil war like this one the OP posted the link to. The NRA ad calling out the hypocrisy of those who want to limit the size of mags for everybody but their own body guards is an example of hard-hitting without even getting close to the idea of a civil war. There may be a few folks who want a civil war, but most people do NOT and it is nowhere close to being effective to scare them with that kind of talk.

kumabear17 · Feb 18, 2013

Appreciate the tone of your response and agree strongly, no one should advocate armed rebellion. It should never come to that. I do question the effectiveness of the NRA ads. It seems to me they are messaging the older audience and to be honest I have only seen them on Fox News anyway. The Democratic Party propaganda machine knows how to put out ads that really rile people up. The Paul Ryan look-a-like pushing granny over the cliff is a classic example. The Conservative side simply sucks at their messaging. Educating people is imporatnt, but I don't see the Right as having figured out yet how to do it. This ad seemed, although drastic I admit, one which would have reached young people not all of whom are Liberal. The NRA really doesn't seem to push a lot of young people into any ad blitz I've seen. I'm like the Democrats on this ad, I would rather ask for forgivness then permission. It has worked for the Left on Obamacare, "Fast and Furious", Benghazi and evrything else they've screwed up.