KSTP’s Decision Not to Run Midwest Heroes Ad
Posted by Andy on February 17th, 2006
Rob Hubbard, who claims he was the one and only one behind the decision not to run the ads was on AM1500 with Ron and Mark today. I was unable to catch the entire interview, but I did catch this one very important, and telling, part.
Hubbard was saying that the decision stemmed from how KSTP didn’t agree that the statements about the media in the ad. That was why they didn’t run the ad, and for that reason alone. They’d be happy to run the second ad, unedited, he said. But they were not offered the chance to by Progress for America. (I have to ask, can you blame them?)
Then he went on to describe to a caller the process of deciding what goes into the news coverage of KSTP. He said that usually the news considered as ‘bad’ is in fact what does get run. Due to its “terminal” nature, it gets priority over other good news. He made a pretty good case for why it is that the media focuses so intently on the “bad” news over the that of the “good”.
Then why the heck is he (and the media) so up in arms when this ad points out that very fact? Of course the people close to the media are going to be apologetic for the media as a whole, but I’d have loved to have seen Ron or Mark have quoted Hubbard to himself on this one like they have in the past to people.
So let’s get it straight.
- KSTP didn’t run the ad because of the critical statement that the media is one sided when it comes news from Iraq being bad.
- KSTP then explains that it (KSTP) does run more bad news than good since it is deemed more important and newsworthy. Due to the urgency of whatever the negative stories are, they often get run over good news.
So it seems like what this is really about is the media was criticized, and that just cannot be tolerated by the media. They make a living criticizing people, whether they be elected/public officials, criminals, or corporate cheats. They never leave a stone unturned when they investigate sexy and juicy stories, but god forbid they don’t lead every newscast with the casualty report from the war, or how many car bombs happened today. How much longer are the 3 year old photos from abu Garib going to rule the air waves?
KSTP could have taken a different tactic then requesting the Veterans change their message. If they truly believed that the ad was misleading, in regards to their own news coverage of the war, there were alternative actions.
- They could have run a disclaimer before the ads saying that the content in this ad does not reflect the views of Channel 5 or Management, just like they do on Saturday afternoons and late at night before those Diet pill commercials. But they didn’t
- They could have done a special report on their very own coverage of the war. If they think the ad mischaracterizes KSTP’s coverage, they could have done a retrospective from the invasion to current day. Along with the percentage of good news accounts to bad. But they didn’t.
I’m sorry to say, that as much as I have admired the Hubbard family’s locally owned and operated news empire, they are dead wrong on this one. They chose to take a stand along side their fellow media members on principle, but did so by snubbing our Veterans just because they happened to dare to speak out against the media. And that my friends is what you cannot do in this world as far as the media is concerned.
You can call the President a liar, accuse the Vice President of being drunk, Republicans crooks, the troops as torturers, rich people as all greedy Republicans, Republicans as Nazis or fascist, and all white people racist etc etc any time you want. That is tolerated speech as far as the media is concerned. But don’t you dare speak negatively of the media.
Sphere: Related Content
February 17th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
And, while still part of the MSM, I thought KSTP was a lot more fair than the rest. I guess I was WRONG!
February 17th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
I’ve already emailed them and bid them a fond farewell. Unbelievable.
February 18th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
It’s really pretty sad that they have chosen to further polarize this country.
February 19th, 2006 at 9:37 am
It really is too bad that KSTP had to pull the ad. The ad says that the media are not reporting the whole story. It doesnt say that the reports are false or misleading. The press can be cricital of anyone, but it seems like no one can be critical of the press. I hope that the Midwest Heroes keep trying to spread their message of support for the troops. The troops don’t deserve any less. They are overseas fighting for us, but it seems like no one over here is fighting for them until hte Midwest Heroes came along.
February 19th, 2006 at 11:29 am
KSTP made the right decision not to run the ad.
As a veteran, of two branches, with 5 years of service overseas, and having started long, long before 2001, I was hot the second I saw the first ad. I was pissed, because I recognize propoganda for what it is. So I read up on the commercials, and the company funding them.
The company paying for the ads, the Progress for America Voter Fund, was started in 2001 and has a long history of paying for commercials on a wide range of issues. Iraq is more of a hobby for them then a main issue. If they truly, truly cared, they would be spending their millions (yes, millions- look it up) on body armor, vehicle armor, and other direct benefits to our troops.
Instead, they play on folklore and stereotypes, and select a few facts that suit their point of view.
The reality is this: every mission given to the military has been accomplished. Eliminate WMD threat: accomplished. Capture Saddam: accomplished. Facilitate elections: accomplished. Twice. The missions just keep on coming. The new round of commercials don’t elaborate on what ‘the mission’ now is. There are 23 million Iraqis, a small fraction of which are actively attacking each other. There are 160,000 Americans in Iraq, protecting VIPs, protecting infrastructure, and protecting each other.
Iraq is 200% over budget and counting. Slick commercials won’t change that.
Yes, thousands of troops have died. Everyone who enlists; me included (now on my 5th contract) understand that. Using past deaths to justify anything ignores basic logic and military planning. Future goals, strategic and tactical planning, and cost/benefit comparisons are the only reason to justify continued expenditures of resources- lives, money, or equipment.
We’ve accomplished our mission in Iraq. It took us about three weeks to take and hold Baghdad. We can do it again if need be.
February 19th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
John: So are you glad that KSTP didn’t run it for the reasons KSTP gave, or for your own? Because they are 2 completely different sets of reasons.
February 19th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
I don’t necessarily think that the troops mission was to take and hold Baghdad. The greater mission was to defeat terrorism in Afghanistan and in Iraq. I think that the ads really exemplify the troops serious mission and the need for Americans to stand up and really support the troops.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:31 pm
Andy- FYI I did cite the same reason as KSTP in my previous post, “Instead, they [Midwest Heroes] play on folklore and stereotypes, and select a few facts that suit their point of view.” The folklore is, “The media only reports the the bad news”. This statement is false. My understanding is that KSTP has sent crews to Iraq repeatedly, reporting both the good and the bad. The reasons KSTP cited are sufficient, though I did ad more reasons that are from my perspective.
‘Bad’ news is a fact of life; my objection to this commercial is the implied slant that only they (MH) are giving the ‘truth’, when in fact they fall short.
Case in point- the claim that troops overwhelming support the mission the President has given them . The Military Times is a series of weekly papers (somewhat) popular on base/post/ship. Their poll (http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2005_main.php) lists support at 54%… closer to a coin flip than ‘overwhelming’ and more accurate to my experience and that of my peers. Before you continue with reading this posting, please follow the link and read the story on the study results; it’s more important for you, the reader, to see the data. Unless MH can produce another survey, their statment about overwhelming support for the mission is questionable (see questions 6, 7, and 10 on Iraq, Afghanistan, and President Bush… link is on second page of article).
And andreww, did you notice that the commercials don’t mention Afghanistan- the country where Al-Quida roosted didn’t merit one mention in the ads. This would be like having a Geo Metro ad showing the inside of a Lexus. In the spirit of ’support the troops’, we’ve reduced ’support’ to mean slapping a ‘fridge magnet on a Geo Metro (or a Lexus, for that matter) and call it a day. So, in that sense, I agree with your stance that Americans need to support the troops, but I differ in what that support should be.
BTW I give you props for having a Reply section. Thank you.