Newt Gingrich makes me angry and so does NBC. Fox...well, it goes without saying.

Last week, NBC refused to run a TV spot from a group called Freedom's Watch "[asking] viewers to remember the troops during the holiday season" because it violated their policy against airing politically controversial ads. The backlash from conservatives was immediate and considerable, and included former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich calling for a boycott of NBC Friday on rival Fox New's "Big Story." By Saturday night, NBC had "reversed course," deciding to modify their ad standards guidelines and to begin running the ad the next day.

The fact is that NBC should have told Gingrich to stick it where the sun doesn't shine, not because the network is run by liberals (although it might be -- I couldn't tell you) and not because the former speaker is anything less than an upstanding American (although the "eighty-four ethics charges [that] were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term" make me wonder), but because he was just plain wrong. The difference between giving Al Gore "35 hours for global warming propaganda" (as Gingrich angrily charged NBC with doing) and running this ad from a radical right-wing political group is that Al Gore didn't use "Green Week" as a platform to spew hate on conservatives (or to promote any websites that spew hate on conservatives).

To give you an idea of what we're dealing with, this is a direct quote from the website of Freedom's Watch: "For too long, conservatives have lacked a permanent political presence to do battle with the radical special interest groups and their left-wing allies in government." Besides being kind of crazy, it is an unapologetic attack on the left-wing. And that's fine -- they have every right in the world to publish that kind of nonsense. But, by the same token, NBC should have every right in the world not to support it. What's particularly galling about this incident -- and what Newt and the Fox News puppets neglect to mention (by the way, I don't know who that chick is, but her suggestion that this was such a "PR...thing" for NBC does not speak highly of her) -- is that NBC offered to run the ad (whose actual content no one had a problem with) without the link to the website, which is what they felt was too controversial. And Freedom's Watch refused. So, what, Freedom's Watch doesn't care enough about the troops to run the ad without their own little plug? Seems kind of hypocritical, but maybe that's just me.

As far as the NBC showing their "true colors" stuff, Chris Matthews (who also drew Gingrich's ire) has a political talk show on MSNBC where, despite being a former Democratic staffer himself, he usually lays pretty well into members of both parties. And, even if he didn't, I find it ironic that Fox News, of all networks, would take anyone to task for being partisan. As for criticizing the president and the war (apparently the ultimate insult to America); well, they need to be criticized -- that's why we have a free press in this country. Frankly, this notion some conservatives have that no one should be allowed to criticize the administration in a time of war is about as un-American as it gets -- it goes against every ideal of freedom that those men and women overseas are fighting for, and it pretty well explains why they shouldn't be there to begin with. If we can't stick to our own principles at home, what business do we have going to another country and telling them how to live? And why should Americans be dying for that? And why can't anybody differentiate between supporting the troops and supporting the war? The whole thing is mind-boggling.

The worst part of the story, of course, is that NBC ultimately backed down and agreed to run the ad, link and all. So not only did they get the "bad press" from their initial refusal to air it, but they also ended up looking weak to boot. And, as usual, the wrong side (ironically, the right side) won.

When are we going to learn that every time someone backs down like this, it further legitimizes the politics of intimidation? And when is the left-wing going to figure out how to grow a pair? Because if we can't even stand up to a has-been demagogue like Newt Gingrich, it's going to take a lot more than ads to beat the best the GOP has to offer come November.

Sources:
NBC Decides to Run Conservative-Group Ad [AP]
Newt Gingrich [Wikipedia]
NBC Rejects Ad From Conservative Group [AP]

Michael Savage got served

Apparently, turnabout is not fair play for Michael Savage.

According to the Associated Press, the conservative talk radio host and all-around loudmouth is suing the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for their use of his one of his broadcasts on their website, which encourages a "letter-writing campaign directed against talk radio advertisers." The 4 minute segment in question includes the following rant, which the lawsuit describes as "provocative and strongly worded," but which might be better described as being outright racist: "What kind of religion is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate...Don't tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation."

Savage claims that the excerpt from the show was taken out of context (he was actually "talking about Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his dangerous and violent brand of Islamic extremism, not about the religion in general," according to an interview with the AP) and that the CAIR's use of it without permission constitutes copyright infringement. CAIR and Savage appear to be in agreement that the campaign has resulted in advertisers pulling their spots from his show, which Savage claims has cost him at least $1 million in revenue.

As you might imagine, I am not a regular listener of Savage's show, although I have heard it before and remember thinking that, even among right-wing blowhards like Bill O'Reilly and Joe Scarborough, Savage was particularly reactionary and obnoxious. Honestly, I would love it if this situation cost Savage $1 million, but I have trouble believing that the kind of advertisers that would support his show would really care what the Council on American-Islamic Relations has to think.

I'm also not a lawyer, so I can't really comment on the legal issues here, but I can say that I find the whole thing kind of ironic. It seems to me that Savage was using his radio show as a platform to denounce an entire religion and the people who follow it (as far as I know, the president of Iran is not subject to deportation since he isn't a resident of the United States), so I don't see why those people shouldn't have the recourse of using his own hate-filled words against him. The suit also alleges that CAIR "is not a civil rights group, but a political organization funded by foreigners with ties to Hamas and other terrorist groups" (which, according to Wikipedia, is a charge that the group has been struggling with ever since its conception though, from what I read, the evidence doesn't really support it), but I'm not sure what bearing that has on his case.

In any event, I personally think it's nice to see one of these talk radio demagogues get what's coming to him because, in my admittedly limited experience of listening to their shows, they tend to toe the line between offensive and downright sickening. One can only hope that, next time, Michael Savage will take a moment and think really hard about what he's going he say before he blasts an entire religion on the air. Sadly, though, I have a feeling that's little more than wishful thinking.

Sources:
Radio Host Sues Group That Quoted Him [Associated Press]
Council on American-Islamic Relations [Wikipedia]
Michael Savage sues Muslim group campaigning for ad boycott [SF Chronicle]