ALERT: Demand That CBS Not Air Outdoor Anti-Vaccine Ad!

[MattusMaximus]

It’s April 8th now, and the ad runs on the 28th. We have 20 days, folks… a LOT can happen in 20 days.

Get moving.

http://skepticalteacher.wordpress.c...and-that-cbs-not-air-outdoor-anti-vaccine-ad/

Okay folks, it’s time to roll up our sleeves and get skeptically active. I have found out that CBS plans to air an anti-vaccination ad on the Jumbotron at 42nd Street in New York’s Times Square starting on April 28th. The sponsoring organizations are the notoriously anti-vaccinationist Mercola and National Vaccine Information Center. These are a couple of the biggest groups out there promoting the falsehood that, among other things, vaccines cause autism (they don’t, btw). And while their ad gives the impression that they want to simply inform people about their “vaccine choices”, what they are really about is spreading flagrantly non-scientific, incorrect, and fear-mongering bilge about vaccines. If you’d like to see some accurate info on vaccines, check out this link to the Hug Me, I’m Vaccinated website.

Folks, we have to do something to stop this. Why? Simple: because vaccines save lives. Period. ...

 

[trvlr2]

Signed the petition.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Isn't this old news and didn't the ad get pulled already? Is this new or is it a rerun of a past issue?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Respectful Insolence weighs in on a closely related item:

The resident anti-vaccine reporter at CBS News strikes again

On the other hand, April is Autism Awareness Month, and I can always count on the anti-vaccine movement to lay down some vaccine pseudoscience on or around April 1 every year (I leave it to the reader to judge the appropriateness of that date); so perhaps this latest from Attkisson is the opening salvo for this year's campaign. Her article opens:

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And our own, Science Based Medicine: Anti-vaccine propaganda from Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News bit it seems to just be the Respectful Insolence article revisited.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I signed the petition.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Isn't this old news and didn't the ad get pulled already? Is this new or is it a rerun of a past issue?

No, this is a new thing. I think you're referring to an ad that was run in some movie theaters a few months back.

Btw, I have it on good authority that this issue is currently being advertised right now at the live SGU recording at NECSS

Pass the word.

 

[AdMan]

Signed.

 

[leonAzul]

Signed.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Signed, but I want more.

Signing a petition may or may not achieve anything. Getting a bunch of noisy demonstrators to Times Square to shout, boo, hiss, and blow air horns every time it airs would be far better IMHO.

Not only do you get a chance to tell passersby (by engaging and by pamphleting) that the ad is a crock of fecal matter, but you'd likely get some air time to have a solid spokesperson refute the nonsense.

What's Randi doing that week? This is a cause worthy of the JREF.

 

[Emet]

Signed.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Signed, but I want more.

Signing a petition may or may not achieve anything. Getting a bunch of noisy demonstrators to Times Square to shout, boo, hiss, and blow air horns every time it airs would be far better IMHO.

Not only do you get a chance to tell passersby (by engaging and by pamphleting) that the ad is a crock of fecal matter, but you'd likely get some air time to have a solid spokesperson refute the nonsense.

What's Randi doing that week? This is a cause worthy of the JREF.

If this were happening anywhere near where I live, or if I lived near NY, I'd certainly show up.

But Lau Joe is right: There should be a demonstration. Petitions are commonplace enough to get ignored nowadays.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If this were happening anywhere near where I live, or if I lived near NY, I'd certainly show up.

But Lau Joe is right: There should be a demonstration. Petitions are commonplace enough to get ignored nowadays.

Common does not get a petition ignored. The number of signers matters to commercial and political targets.

 

[Beth]

It’s April 8th now, and the ad runs on the 28th. We have 20 days, folks… a LOT can happen in 20 days.

Get moving.

http://skepticalteacher.wordpress.c...and-that-cbs-not-air-outdoor-anti-vaccine-ad/

And while their ad gives the impression that they want to simply inform people about their “vaccine choices”, what they are really about is spreading flagrantly non-scientific, incorrect, and fear-mongering bilge about vaccines.

While I basically agree with the above, I cannot agree with the tactic you have chosen to oppose them with. I didn't sign the petition because I place free speech rights above the health and safety concerns of some people not vaccinating for some diseases. Those organizations have a right to advertise and, with truth-in-advertising laws, they cannot legally spread lies and misinformation in the ad; they can only use innuendo.

My opinion is that this is an attempt at censorship of ideas you disapprove of. Even if you are successful, that is going to be the impression that many members of the public will have regarding your campaign. I don't think that's particularly helpful if you want other people to trust what you believe about vaccinations and which sources you believe give correct and incorrect information about vaccinations.

Signing a petition may or may not achieve anything. Getting a bunch of noisy demonstrators to Times Square to shout, boo, hiss, and blow air horns every time it airs would be far better IMHO.

Not only do you get a chance to tell passersby (by engaging and by pamphleting) that the ad is a crock of fecal matter, but you'd likely get some air time to have a solid spokesperson refute the nonsense.

I think this is a far superior approach. Given speech that some people in society disagree with (I don't care whether it's anti-vaccination movement or the anti-war movement) I prefer that people counter the problem with more speech rather than attempt to censor or repress others from expressing the ideas they disapprove of.

 

[!Kaggen]

While I basically agree with the above, I cannot agree with the tactic you have chosen to oppose them with. I didn't sign the petition because I place free speech rights above the health and safety concerns of some people not vaccinating for some diseases. Those organizations have a right to advertise and, with truth-in-advertising laws, they cannot legally spread lies and misinformation in the ad; they can only use innuendo.

My opinion is that this is an attempt at censorship of ideas you disapprove of. Even if you are successful, that is going to be the impression that many members of the public will have regarding your campaign. I don't think that's particularly helpful if you want other people to trust what you believe about vaccinations and which sources you believe give correct and incorrect information about vaccinations.



I think this is a far superior approach. Given speech that some people in society disagree with (I don't care whether it's anti-vaccination movement or the anti-war movement) I prefer that people counter the problem with more speech rather than attempt to censor or repress others from expressing the ideas they disapprove of.

Hear! Hear!

 

[Tiktaalik]

While I basically agree with the above, I cannot agree with the tactic you have chosen to oppose them with. I didn't sign the petition because I place free speech rights above the health and safety concerns of some people not vaccinating for some diseases. Those organizations have a right to advertise and, with truth-in-advertising laws, they cannot legally spread lies and misinformation in the ad; they can only use innuendo.

My opinion is that this is an attempt at censorship of ideas you disapprove of. Even if you are successful, that is going to be the impression that many members of the public will have regarding your campaign. I don't think that's particularly helpful if you want other people to trust what you believe about vaccinations and which sources you believe give correct and incorrect information about vaccinations...

Innuendo can spread lies and misinformation.

This is not censorship; it's the free speech of the people who are signing the petition. Those who disagree have the same right as those who agree to their free speech, whatever form it comes in.

A company choosing not to support a particular advertiser is not censorship, either. The advertiser can buy their own time or use another venue.

 

[Beth]

Innuendo can spread lies and misinformation.

Certainly. But they can't do it in an advertisement or they risk running afoul of the law.

This is not censorship; it's the free speech of the people who are signing the petition. Those who disagree have the same right as those who agree to their free speech, whatever form it comes in.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't censorship. Some censorship is appropriate. There are, after all, limits on free speech. For example, advertisements cannot contain false information. That could be considered a form of censorship. I would expect that when those laws were passed, there were objections raised on that basis.

I wouldn't prohibit the attempt being made to suppress such speech, as that would also be a form of censorship. I was explaining why I won't sign the petition. I see it as an attempt at censorship and I won't participate in that.

A company choosing not to support a particular advertiser is not censorship, either. The advertiser can buy their own time or use another venue.

Here I think we run into a very murky area about what does and does not constitute censorship. I would consider is a form of censorship, but I can appreciate that not everyone would agree with that.

I also consider Walmart to be exercising a form of censorship when they choose not to sell certain books, magazines and music because they object to their content. I recognize they have the right to do so and I am not particularly surprised that I don't share the values of the Walmart corporation.

When I read the OP, I was reminded of some of the many such campaigns run by conservative religious organizations to get material removed from various TV shows some years ago. I didn't appreciate their tactics then. Back when cable TV was still in the future, it sure felt like censorship. Even though I generally agree with the OP, I'm not going to change my mind about the use of that tactic.

 

[ehcks]

There is no censorship in a company being forced to stop selling a product or idea when enough people make it clear that they won't buy it.

 

[MikeSun5]

While I basically agree with the above, I cannot agree with the tactic you have chosen to oppose them with. I didn't sign the petition because I place free speech rights above the health and safety concerns...

Well thanks anyway, though.

I just exercised my right to free speech by signing a petition for a worthy cause, btw. I'm all about free speech AND health and safety. I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

I do see your point though (no I don't). If you can't go to NYC to engage in a hypothetical protest, it's better to do nothing than sign a non-hypothetical petition.

 

[Emet]

When I read the OP, I was reminded of some of the many such campaigns run by conservative religious organizations to get material removed from various TV shows some years ago. I didn't appreciate their tactics then. Back when cable TV was still in the future, it sure felt like censorship. Even though I generally agree with the OP, I'm not going to change my mind about the use of that tactic.

Did you actually read the petition?

CBS, Don't let Anti-vaccine Ad Threaten our Safety

Greetings CBS Outdoor,

We are asking CBS not to run Mercola and the NVIC's anti-vaccine ad in Times Square.

Mercola and the NVIC have cooperated to run an ad in Times Square on April 26. This ad directs viewers to their sites to learn more about vaccines. Upon visiting these two sites, consumers are falsely informed that vaccines cause autism, learning disabilities, seizures, cancer and death. Mercola actively encourages the public to refuse vaccines. And the NVIC works to ensure that parents have opportunity and reason to refuse vaccines for their children.

Their information is wrong. And the fear these two organizations are spreading is deadly. In the last four years, in the US alone, almost 77,000 people have been infected with vaccine preventable diseases. over 700 of those people died. According to the WHO, measles kills 200,000 people worldwide annually.

Last year, 10 babies died in California from whooping cough, deaths which were easily preventable had the people around them been vaccinated. This year, measles outbreak in Minnesota has hospitalized up to a half dozen unvaccinated children. And just this week, a school in Roanoke, VA, lax on vaccine enforcement, was closed due to at least 30 of their students and staff being infected with the pertussis virus, putting the entire community at risk; and a high school in Utah has sent home 30 students and two pregnant faculty members after a single unvaccinated student was diagnosed with measles.

As of 10 years ago, measles was considered eradicated in the United States. Now, thanks to anti-vaccine campaigns such as this one, we are seeing a resurgence.

Mercola and the NVIC's message is dangerous, even deadly. Do not let them use your screens to threaten our health and well-being.