Tweet
The Hill reports a strange story in which NBC and its former evening news anchorman, Tom Brokaw, are demanding that Mitt Romney’s campaign take down an ad in Florida that features Tom Brokaw delivering the news. The news Tom is delivering is that the House found Speaker Gingrich guilty of unethical behavior and fined him. Here’s the YouTube version of the ad:
So, you may ask, what exactly is wrong with a candidate using a segment of a newscast to present a piece of relevant history it wants voters to learn from the ad? The fact is, thousands of political campaign ads routinely use news headlines, highlighted quotes, charts, photos and everything else the media prints or broadcasts all the time. And thousands of blog articles routinely use snippets of the same media every day under well recognized fair use policies.
Is there something factually wrong or morally unethical about the ad? If there is, I can’t figure it out. The entire point of the ad seems to be to remind viewers of the uncontested and widely reported fact that a rival candidate, a former Speaker of the House, was cited and fined by his own colleagues for ethical violations. Did this not happen?
But NBC and Tom Brokaw don’t want the Romney people to run the ad. Why? They don’t claim the Brokaw broadcast was in error, or misleadingly edited, or later rebutted, or taken out of context, or is any way untruthful. The ad does not claim or suggest that NBC or Mr. Brokaw have a position one way or another about the choice for the GOP nomination today. So how is the Romney campaign’s use of this historic footage objectionable in any way?
Sadly, NBC’s reasoning is not very convincing. According to The Hill:
“I am extremely uncomfortable with the extended use of my personal image in this political ad,” Brokaw said in a statement. “I do no want my role as a journalist compromised for political gain by any campaign.”
NBC’s legal department said it had written a letter to Romney’s campaign asking that it remove all NBC News material from the campaign’s ads. NBC added that it has issued similar requests when other campaigns have “inappropriately used Nightly News, Meet the Press, Today and MSNBC material.”
Well, boo hoo, Tom. Your job was to report the news. You did. How is reshowing what you reported compromising you in any way? The ad shows you doing your job. The fact that the news from back then has become politically relevant in a hot political campaign doesn’t change a thing. And it’s not for you, Tom Brokaw, to determine what news may or may not be used by political candidates to explain their positions. And what, NBC, is “inappropriate” here?
You’d think the media would, for once, praise a candidate for putting out a factually correct, undoctored recording of the news as a means to reveal the historical truth in a political ad. But Tom Brokaw is “extremely uncomfortable,” not because there’s anything false about the ad but because, I suspect, it shows the media doing its job at a time when NBC doesn’t want to remind GOP voters about that, and just after Brian Williams in the last debate did everything he could to cower in a foxhole. Get out of the foxhole, or go home.
40 Comments
I totally agree with you, Scarecrow. Seems a little strange to me when a news organization objects when someone quotes one of its articles in what is undoubtedly fair use.
It doesn’t suggest in any way (s NBC claims) that they endorse Romney — it only shows what they reported some time ago. So now does copyright prevent referring to the substance of news articles and televised reports?
I also think you’re right in suggesting that the real reason NBC and Brokaw are uncomfortable is because they have an agenda of their own to promote.
Brokaw is a public figure. Back in the quaint days, use of material featuring public figures required fewer restraints.
But now, I suppose, bc Brokaw is a 1%er, he will be granted the privacy status that the 99ers aren’t.
Does seem strange to object to a newscast being used in an ad, albeit each newscast is copyrighted..
But Newt notes that the size of the fine was set to be equal to the cost of the investigation – so he quibbles about the word “fine”.
The basic documents show he lied to the House, so his other line that he was found innocent of all charges seems disingenuous.
Gee, Brokaw didn’t seem to mind when his “personal image” was helping him bring in buckets of money from his never-ending World War II book series. Funny, that…
I bet if we had a nickel for every time Brokaw talked about Clinton’s jizz stains, and the republican poon-posse that was so diligently pursuing them, we could all go out for beer and pizza tonight…lots of beer and pizza.
I can’t help but wonder, if Bubba had decided to run for the senate from somewhere, and some repub had used one of those programs to remind everyone (if they needed it…) about Clinton’s scoring those White House BJ’s, would Saint Brokaw have complained about being “compromised”???
Newt’s new ad, “Blood Money,” is brutal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/newt-gingrich-ad-blood-money-bashes-mitt-romney_n_1235177.html
Maybe Brokaw wants some royalties for the use of his image.
1%er scumbag.
Perhaps, Tom Brokaw may be able to publicly comiserate with Jamie Dimon, eCAHN, to the fine instruction of the rest of us on the proper respect due those who reside on the Empyrean heights.
It is presumptuous and crude of we little people to gaze upon the natural elite when they wish that we not do so… and yet Mitt, himself, is a fellow inhabitant of the rarefied and ethereal … who, seeming has forgotten the rules of the right crowd … to wit ” … no crowding!”
Cast down your gaze the Great Brokaw doth approach with his EnBeeCee entourage!!!
A thin-skinned bunch seem to be gathered on high these daze, Scarecrow, ’twere best that we not overvex them as they might remove from us their favor which would cast us into a darkness quite as if the sun had turned away and petulantly refused to shine. Catastrophe! Calamity! And collapse!!!
;~DW
Remember the tiny tempest twixt Olbermann, Koppel, and also Brokaw sticking his nose in?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/15/keith-olbermann-ted-koppel-objectivity-news_n_784000.html
DWB from above,
Thin-skinned. I like the characterization. 1%ers may not be monolithic but they have their rules for infighting, b’golly. Or usta have their rules. I’m thinking this might turn out to be a delicious election cycle, if you like cannibalism that is.
I’m not an attorney, but it seems to me that the ad falls under fair use.
I thought I heard somewhere that copyright law prohibits the use of “more than 15 seconds” of material. In other words, car ads (etc.) have to pay for the use of music in ads.
If so, then maybe the same rule applies here? And while Brokaw’s complaint may be heartfelt, NBC could be using it as a strawman for other reasons. Who knows… they do get all sorts of publicity with the other ads that flash headlines with credits… but maybe this is an area their legitimately concerned about from a business perspective? I’m not lawyer though. Just saying.
That’s what I was referring to as the quaint days of yesteryear above. The rules have changed. 1%ers get everything they want now.
What really cracks me up though is Brokaw complaining about himself being used in a political context. Hogwash.
I remember watching NBC Nightly News years ago with Tom as anchor. He started his segment by mentioning (paraphrasing) “The good news is that the IMF approved a bailout for Brazil.”
That was an overt opinion on policy. And isn’t that the very definition of politics — opining on policy?
As I sidenote, I turned him off at that moment and don’t recall ever watching him again. Cable news was on the rise. And I didn’t give up on that until I realized it wasn’t worth the scarce money I had.
The Romney campaign should send Brokaw and the NBC legal beagles a bouquet of flowers and a thank-you note for guaranteeing that the brouhaha they’ve generated guarantees wider distribution of the ad. Free to Mitt’s campaign!
That might be the agenda.
It’s likely they are squawking because the story was later proved wrong. Gingrich was exonerated of all charges by the IRS.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/greghengler/2012/01/23/video_1999_cnn_report_on_newt_gingrichs_exoneration_by_the_irs_over_ethics_charges
WOW. Brutal is an understatement! And obviously, I’m now on the edge of my seat… forget the substance (or lack thereof)… the cinematography was awesome.
Wow – Town Hall!
You can go fuck yourself now, wingnut…
snap!
Yeah, exonerated. That’s why Newticles resigned in disgrace rather than fight charges. Doesn’t pass the giggle test.
Thought of that, too.
That “15 seconds” rule has never been true, but the misconception has been around for a long time. An advertiser cannot use even one second of someone’s copyrighted material without permission or a fair use claim. A fair use claim would be to quote a portion of a competitor’s advertisement that mentions your company in order to rebut derogatory claims.
When invoking fair use, you must limit yourself to the minimum amount of the copyrighted work that enables you to make your point. That’s why Yoko Ono lost her case against the documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” That film criticizes John Lennon’s song “Imagine” for its anti-religious sentiments. The film defended itself successfully on fair use grounds because it only played the portion of the song with the lyrics it was critiquing. (I sometimes work on documentaries, so I have some knowledge of these issues.)
Shooter needs some time at the practice range.
Did you all miss the CNN tape or are they now considered the equivalent of FOX?
Well… if the argument is that Newt is saying he’s better than Romney… I think this legitimately falls within the “rebuttal” use. haha…
how dumb – the irs cant exhonerate gingrich from the ethics violations that congress overwhelmingly charged and voted him out with – irs only talks about tax
gingrich was utterly disgraced because he was utterly disgraceful
Money and copyright issue seems main point. They are rebroadcasting an NBC product. I’m guessing they could redo the ad (a good one for Democrats to repeat if Newt is GOP candidate) with a collage of “NBC NEWS” “CBS NEWS” “CNN NEWS” and, coolest of all, “FOX NEWS: GINGRICH GUILTY OF UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE”, “FOX NEWS: GINGRICH RESIGNS IN DISGRACE AFTER BEING FOUND GUILTY OF ETHICS VIOLATIONS”.
You’re asking that question of the wrong group here, pal. Far as I’m concerned they’re two sides of the same coin as the dems and rethugs are two wings of the same party, the money party.
the answer is obvious: nbc is behind newt gingrich
In case anyone didn’t know, Brokaw has publicly admitted to being a Republican.
No link, but I distinctly remember hearing it from his own stupidly exaggerated-grovelly “radio” voice.
Therefore Brokaw is an asshole. (A Newt-loving asshole, apparently)
Speaking of Newt, Herman Cain just endorsed him. :o)
Wonder if they got together over drinks and discussed techniques for screwing around on your wife, without getting caught?
I can hear Leno and the late-nighters licking their chops, as we speak. :o)
Well, Brokaw’s reaction tells us a little about his “role as a journalist.” If he had actually been a journalist–”. . . but I play one on teevee”–if his job had been to “report the news,” then he wouldn’t have this reaction. The guy who pimped the the myth of the Greatest Generation doesn’t want the integrity of what he refers to as journalism “compromised for political gain”? Indeed.
Brokaw is one of the many public faces of of those who don’t report but instead write the news, as your paraphrase reveals.
The House in a 395-28 VOTE, REPRIMANDED GINGRICH
First time in history that happened to a Speaker.
As to being found “innocent” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/101198.htm, the 10/11/98 Washington Post explained the need to get out of town for re-election campaigns, saying:
“the House ethics committee dropped the three remaining ethics charges against Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) yesterday, despite finding that Gingrich repeatedly violated one rule by using a political consultant to develop the Republican legislative agenda….The ethics panel decided to take no further action because there is no evidence that “Rule 45″ violations are continuing in the speaker’s office, a post Gingrich has held since 1995. Consultant Jeffrey Eisenach’s work took place while Gingrich was the GOP minority whip in 1990-91….”The committee believes you have been adequately informed and cautioned on Rule 45 issues and anticipates full compliance in the future,” said Rep. James V. Hansen (R-Utah), the panel’s chairman, and Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) in a letter to Gingrich…The committee decision came near the close of the House session as lawmakers hurried to clear languishing business and return to their districts to campaign for next month’s election…Eisenach was a paid consultant to GOPAC, a Republican political group formerly chaired by Gingrich, according to the letter…Gingrich is paying $300,000 for the costs of an ethics committee investigation after admitting last year he made inaccurate statements during a lengthy probe into Democratic allegations that he misused tax-exempt donations. Gingrich denied the charges but submitted to a reprimand by the House.”
The $250,000 from Gopac that he personally pocketed in the “support Newt” accounting entry “fund” was per IRS not taxable – but it still was unethical to hide the income and the doner.
Tom Brokaw I think is a social liberal and an economic conservative, much like most of the “aristocrats” that own or disseminate television news. ie. Brokaw is a neoliberal.
I think Brokaw’s agenda is to reelect Obama-the-Guy-of-No-Honor. Hence Brokaw wants Gingrich to win over Romney, as Obama has a greater chance of beating Gingrich than Romney in a national lineup. Obama can then proceed to effectively get the Democrats to enact regressive VAT/flat tax, extend tax cuts for the rich, shut down Internet freedoms, cut ss and Medicare. It is apparent from these three years that these are on Obama’s agenda.
Brokaw seems to be the “liberal hypocrites” of the old generation ie. he is liberal on certain things (social) that make him feel good about himself.
Hmmmm. Prejudice and bigotry. Low IQ. Hmmmm.
Some time ago during morning commute, browsing the radio I’d come across that stomach-turning Don Imus. I listened whenever he had Tom Brokaw or Dan Rather for guests. I don’t know why, but both seemed to reveal their true identities to Imus. And both appeared to me as neo-liberals of the most dishonest kind.
From everything that I hear and see, one can only conclude that everything you hear and see, is not all truth nor all lies. I just finished watching PBS, with Bill Moyers. I have too admit, it was very interesting, listening to some of his guest regarding the creation of this present calamity. Some of which actually took part in it, with the co-operation of ours illustrious leaders, too repeal a very important Bill that was put into law back in 1933.
Senator Byrion of South Dakota, was totally against repealing this Bill, because he saw the greed and corruption that lurked in it. This he talked about it in Congress in 1999, he predicted the the begining the fall.
Sorry, it should read North Dakota.