Not Too Graphic for Fox News!

  • Thread starter Thread starter PLAL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PLAL

Guest
February 10, 2006
Not too graphic for Fox News

Yesterday CNS News picked up on my blog post about ***The Herald News ***refusing to run **Right to Life of Will County’s **ads featuring ultrasound pictures. The paper stated the ads were “too graphic.”

Last night ***Fox News’ *****Special Report with Brit Hume **picked up the story, and ***Fox News ***is still covering the story today…

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/excusemeamerica.jpg
%between%

Update: **Janet Folger **will interview me about this on her Faith2Action radio show this afternoon at 2:30p EST.

Hat tip: Tim from **ProLifeBlogs.com **
jillstanek.net/
 
Fox puts itself further from the MSM on this one. This is why it is my cable news chanel of choice.

PF
 
Illinois Newspaper Rejects Sonogram Ads as 'Too Graphic’
By Dawn Rizzoni
CNSNews.com Correspondent
February 09, 2006

**(CNSNews.com) - **A pro-life group in Illinois said a local newspaper refused to publish advertisements featuring sonogram images because executives at the paper considered the ads to be “too graphic.”

When contacted by Cybercast News Service, the advertising manager of the Joliet-based Herald News did not deny using that description, but he said his newspaper reserves the right to reject any ad for any reason.

Jill Stanek, president of the Will County, Ill., chapter of the National Right to Life Committee, told Cybercast News Service that she contacted the advertising department at the Herald News in hopes of buying space to depict a sonogram photo and a box of tissues with text reading, “Excuse me America, this is tissue, this (the unborn child) is not.”

According to Stanek, after the newspaper refused the ad, she offered a different ad reading, “She’s a child, not a choice,” along with a different sonogram photo, but that also was rejected.

A third submission was made with an ad reading, “I am an American,” again with a different sonogram photo. Once again, the paper refused to run the ad, Stanek said, for the same reason - that it was “too graphic.”

Each ad was created by The National Right to Life Committee and included various statistics and information about abortion and fetal development.

cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive00602\CUL20060209a.html
 
Did you hear that a **Joliet **newspaper refused to run a pro-life ad that showed an ultrasound photo of a baby because it was “too graphic”? A beautiful unborn baby, just like the photos that proud parents and grandparents have posted on their refrigerators for years! It would seem that their bias for abortion is showing. If you think this censorship is just a little overboard please contact the editor, Bill Wimbiscus at 815-729-6124, or email him at bwimbiscus@scn1.com.
 
Here’s the note I sent.

Mr. Wimbiscus,

For the sake of our families and children please run the Right to Life advertizement you recently rejected. No decision is morally nuetral. Everything we do has moral overtones. By allowing the running of this advertizement you show your support for free speech and at least the tacit approval for having a discussion about the right of a baby to be born. As a college professor you also show that the proper use of the English language is important. Tissue is a paper product without life and can rightly be flushed away. Babies are not dead until the die; are not made of paper; and are not to be flushed away as waste matter.

At present I am a subscriber to the newspaper.

Carson Daniel Lauffer
 
Here’s their reply led by my reply. It appears that the add will now be able to be run and I hope the committee will send it.

CDL

Thank you very much. I will pass along this response to others who are concerned. You are to be commended for your prompt reply and for your fair stand.

Carson D. Lauffer

Wimbiscus Bill bwimbiscus@scn1.com wrote:
Dear sir or maam:

I am not involved in decisions concerning advertising content. Your
message has been passed on to our advertising department and corporate
offices. They have issued the following release:
After re-examining the ads that were submitted by Will County Right To
Life, The Herald News has decided that the ads will be allowed to run
should this group decide to do so. For the record, the original
decision to not run them was mine and at no point did I state that the
ads were “too graphic”. If that was stated by a representative of this
newspaper, it was done so in error.

I e-mailed Jill Stanek Sunday afternoon and left a message with the
local contact before 9:00am this morning requesting that they contact
me. The purpose of this contact was to inform them of my decision.

Steve Vanisko

Advertising Director

The Herald News
Hopefully this will resolve any concerns you have on this issue.
Bill Wimbiscus
Managing Editor
The Herald News
 
OUTSTANDING!!! I love FOX news… I love the way that they are fair and balanced and don’t have a problem admitting they’re wrong if they make a mistake, they don’t make a mockery out of morals and they stand up with/for a purpose… and it isn’t a personal immoral agenda!
 
PLAL

The world wants to know. Has the organization reubmitted the ad?

CDL
 
If the decision maker has the integrity to admit the decision is his and that he did not state the adds as being ‘too graphic’ they I would take him at his word.

Great job!

Wonderful news to say the least.

God bless.
 
Has the ad been reissued? Does anyone know? Or is this all just a temptest in a teapot?

CDL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top