Did the Palm Center submit this anti-DADT 30-second spot to Fox News knowing the cable network would reject it — and provide the organization with tens of thousands of dollars in free publicity as well all “report” on the rejection? The ad, which is quite bad and would likely appear to be terribly ineffective, comes from the same University of California-Santa Barbara’s think tank that told Congress to pass the Pentagon budget bill even if a Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal wasn’t included — while operating a website dedicated to showing the Pentagon how letting gays serve openly doesn’t hurt anyone. Meanwhile, putting the ad on Fox News is an utter waste of money: The reason people tune in to the network isn’t to have their minds changed. It’s to have their already narrow view of the world reinforced by rhetoric. “Fox’s reason [for rejecting the spot] was that the policy is ‘on hold’ so plans for repeal are ‘incorrect’,” says Palm Center spokeswoman and uber-gay flack Cathy Renna. Which proves our point: Fox News merely twists actual facts into its fair and balanced brand of reality.
censored
Rejected By Fox News, The Palm Center’s Awful DADT Ad Threatens To Go Viral
Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...
We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?
Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated
Shaded Spriter
Is it just me or does that look like it took 30 minutes to make in windows movie maker.
Sam
So you’ve gone and reported this, giving the cause (no matter how crappy the quality of the video is) free publicity and contributing to its viral spread worldwide. Yay.
Ken S
Wow- here’s a question or four: who cares if it *did* take 30 mins in Windows Movie Maker, if it’s right? Why do we have to scrutinize and mock how much money did or did not go into making a good point? Is there some minimum expenditure before the truth gains credibility? Would the argument be even less ‘legitimate’ if it was produced by volunteers, for free?
I get so sick of hearing smug, unhelpful people deride others’ sincere efforts towards doing some good because- oh- it isn’t fabulous enough. Because they didn’t blow a million dollars on some high-def flashy presentation with eye-popping graphics and Morgan Freeman narrating. Fuck that. “Several of our allies did it and it was no big deal”– it’s a simple, concise, truthful argument in the debate and it shouldn’t take big-budget production values for it to be afforded legitimacy. Or are we such vapid, materialistic idiots that we’ll judge the validity of what someone says by whether or not their megaphone is gold-plated?
Shaded Spriter
The fact it looked so bad to me was distracting to me which is why I commented. If it distracts from me enough that I didn’t get what countries the people speaking were from the first time. It will be very easily ignored by the target viewership and therefore unpersuasive.
Ken S
@Shaded Spriter: If people are so distracted from the content by un-extravagant production values, then I think that’s more an indictment of the audience than the message, personally :-/