Video: Ad for “Redacted” airs during “The O’Reilly Factor”?
posted at 1:22 pm on November 18, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
When I first saw this clip on YouTube, I figured some O’Reilly-hater must have spliced an ad for the film into a recording of one of the Factor’s commercial blocks to try to embarrass O’R. So I checked my own recording of the program on Thursday night … and there it was, at around 8:37, right before the segment with Bernie Goldberg and Jane Hall. That in turn reminded me of a post we did this summer about an ad for MSNBC.com that aired during Hannity & Colmes. I thought at the time that it was lame for a competitor to be advertising on Fox News, but some commenters claimed that cable companies sometimes decide when and where ads will run, thus potentially absolving MSNBC. And in fact, when I compared my recording of the Factor to the clip below, the spots following the “Redacted” ad were different: my cable carrier cut to a commercial for Raymond James while the carrier in the YouTube clip cut to spots for Dunkin Donuts and Prilosec. Might the two cable companies each independently have stuck “Redacted” into an airing of the Factor?
Nope. Mark Cuban, the film’s producer, claims he bought the ad from Fox itself with specific instructions to air it during the Factor, an obvious ploy to embarrass O’Reilly. And darned if Fox didn’t let him. Cuban thinks O’Reilly probably knew the ad would air but I’m guessing he didn’t. Either way, looks bad.
It’ll probably get played off as a “if Cuban wants to sponsor my attempts to shut him down, he’s welcome to do so” thing.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Would be nice of Fix to let O Reilly Know when they are running it and then Bill O can mock the ad and tell everyone what a horrible movie it is
William Amos on November 18, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Sorry that should have been nice of FOX but Fix does work sometimes heh
William Amos on November 18, 2007 at 1:26 PM
And if I were Bill O’Reilly, I’d “spin” it the exact same way! Go-go Billy O.!
gryphon202 on November 18, 2007 at 1:26 PM
FOX is secure enough to allow differing views on their network, on shows and in ads, which others don’t do. If Cuban thinks he is pulling one over by placing an ad during Bill’s show, he just doesn’t get it. No surprise. Bill will take care of Redacted during The Factor.
katieanne on November 18, 2007 at 1:30 PM
I have no problem with media outlets taking ads from the other side generally, but an ad for a movie you’re trying to engineer a national boycott against? That’s odd.
Allahpundit on November 18, 2007 at 1:32 PM
That’s a very nice way of putting it.
progressoverpeace on November 18, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Personally, if it were up to me, I wouldn’t have allowed it. I find Cuban and the movie loathesome. But perhaps there is a method to FOX’s madness. It will be interesting to see how Bill deals with it.
katieanne on November 18, 2007 at 1:46 PM
O’Reilly isn’t trying to call for a boycott against the movie. He’s asking for signs at Mav’s games and protesters at the theaters. Other than products of France, has O’Reilly called for an actual boycott of anything, especially media products?
O’Reilly will not call for any boycott against advertisers buying airtime from any outlet or on any program that offends him because those same advertisers may also be FNC customers as well.
The logical thing for O’Reilly to do is to call for a boycott of the film, theaters showing it and all companies associated with any of Cuban’s enterprises. He will not do that because it will possibly affect the FNC revenue stream.
rw on November 18, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Does Fox News Corp share the same opinion as The Factor? I would probably think not, or is irrelevant as the promo most likely adhered to Fox’s Advertising Department guidelines which should be free of political opinion.
Nonetheless, Fox took money rather than gave money, so technically . . .
geckomon on November 18, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Even O’Reilly once said when someone wrote in asking why FOX News would air a CNN commercial: “Because their checks clear”.
If Cuban wants his ad on during The Factor, good for him. But yeah…it’s bit embarassing to have an ad pay for your time slot, while you’re running a boycott of the movie.
JetBoy on November 18, 2007 at 1:52 PM
You know, this whole “they paid for the airtime” issue is very thought-provoking, but I’m not really sure which side of this issue I come down on, honestly.
And what this tells me is that as far as Fox is concerned, the studio’s money is as good as anyone else’s. Is it possible that this was simply thought of as a sound business decision, and that Fox brass left politics out of the discussion? Is it possible to leave politics out of such discussions as these?
gryphon202 on November 18, 2007 at 1:54 PM
To be honest how many of us on the right DONT know this is a crappy movie ?
At least Fox give Micheal Medved a commerical to run righ after this to state what he thinks of this stinker.
BTW NY Times gushed about how “This would be a great movie if not for the set up and bad acting”
William Amos on November 18, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Airing the promo’ does seem odd but it only proves the “nutroot / Fox News” derangement folk wrong that Fox news is one cohesive blob of necon propaganda.
They are already spinning it that Murdoch’s thirst for money trumps their “agenda”
Make up your mind moonbats.
186k on November 18, 2007 at 2:08 PM
I’m seeing a quote attributed to O’Reilly in various places online that goes, “You (Mark Cuban) pull that movie or I’m going to be your worst nightmare.”
Allahpundit on November 18, 2007 at 2:10 PM
At least Fox understands free speech, which is more than I can say for O’Reilly.
B26354 on November 18, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Both excellent points. O’Reilly does not dictate editorial policy for Fox News, no matter what he thinks. But, as per Allah’s point, “it looks bad” for Fox to make money off of a movie ad after their own star rips the financial backer for his role.
Still, I like the idea of Fox taking money from Cuban while taking money from Cuban. Since he has nothing else, taking his money seems like a good place to start.
Jaibones on November 18, 2007 at 2:21 PM
I haven’t been the most loyal Factor viewer since spitgate, but unless I missed the show where he called for Factor viewers to boycott the movie, then all he’s done is called for signs and protests at theaters. I seem to remember O’Reilly making the “worst nightmare” comment, but as near as I can tell, he is threatening death by bad PR and not economic warfare. Now that I think about it, O’Reilly did say that he was against the movie being banned because of free speech issues. The only way I see the movie being banned is as the result of a threatened boycott of theaters showing it.
The signs at Mav’s games idea is just dumb. Let’s give Cuban money for tickets so that we can hold up signs… sorta like what Cuban did by buying the ad. Does anyone think that Cuban will call for a boycott of FNC advertisers, other than himself?
In the end, I think that O’Reilly is hoping that his *wink*wink*nudge*nudge* signs and protests important action alert idea will translate into a boycott for which he is too constrained to call.
rw on November 18, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Doesn’t he mean he’s against government censorship? We’re all against that.
If he’s not calling for a boycott, what does he mean by “pull it”?
Allahpundit on November 18, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Not on everything, surely. But O’Reilly’s their biggest show. The least they can do is avoid humiliating him by running the ad during his own program.
Allahpundit on November 18, 2007 at 2:39 PM
It is odd that FNC would accept the ad for placement on the Factor. Can’t wait to see how this plays out.
Zorro on November 18, 2007 at 2:51 PM
O’Reilly’s entitled to his opinion too, you know. Free Speech doesn’t mean you get to say whatever you want without criticism.
eclark1849 on November 18, 2007 at 2:54 PM
As much as I despise both “Redacted” and Cuban, I’ll have to agree with that. There have been commercials for everything from “Sicko” to end-times preachers (The World Tomorrow) during his show.
Why should this be any different?
But as for that last bit, I think the only way itd be embarrassing to O’Reilly is if he actually had control over what goes in the commercial slot. Which he doesn’t.
Ryan Gandy on November 18, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Is there any mechanism in place for the government to censor the film? What are they going to do, have it declared as obscene? I take the “pull it” comment as a demand for self censorship on the part of Cuban, or O’Reilly will be forced to unleash the soft cushions of his legions of viewers buying tickets to Maverick’s games to hold up protest signs.
If the Boss were calling for a boycott of the film it wouldn’t look like what O’Reilly is doing now. It would be unmistakable.
rw on November 18, 2007 at 2:56 PM
I love it! Mark “The Traitor” Cuban clearly paid top dollar for this ad. This increases his bottom line for production costs. No one is going to watch it because of this spot and the movie is an even bigger failure.
Cuban is a lightweight. Bill can handle the likes of him and his ilk.
csdeven on November 18, 2007 at 2:59 PM
1. O’Reilly vrs Cuban
2. Allow ad to run on Factor
3. ???
4. Profit!
Is what I’m guessing the motivation is, either that or the people who take the money and place the ads just genuinely dont know about or care about this skirmish.
Dash on November 18, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Let me preface that I will not see this movie, and agree with Bill’s opinion. But really, that’s beside the point. Question is, can Fox’s advertising dept. make an editorial decision as to what type of ad content to run during specific programs?
I understand your point about not humiliating Bill, I would just like to know what is their process of refusal and if they can fairly refuse an ad based on The Factor’s content. It would seem shady. It works when a sponsor can refuse to pay for ad space because of a shows content, but the other way around?
At least Fox News did not offer the NYT special “Rate du jour.” Even an inflated price would be shady (but righteous).
geckomon on November 18, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Underpants gnomes for teh win. :D
Ryan Gandy on November 18, 2007 at 3:05 PM
What does this have to do with the propriety of running ads on the show, though? Whether he really wants a national boycott or just people waving signs, he clearly regards the film as a specie of anti-American propaganda and incitement to terrorism. Note the line at the end of this clip: “No loyal American should support an enterprise that incites hatred against America.”
Allahpundit on November 18, 2007 at 3:08 PM
While I am outraged by Redacted, something “more important” is on the horizon. Brace yourselves…
A French animated film that is going to be a BIG problem for France. Watch the trailer (subtitles).
This will make the riots seem like Woodstock.
Agrippa2k on November 18, 2007 at 3:18 PM
That makes the most sense. Fox is a huge organization, so the one hand probably isn’t aware of what the other is doing.
infidel4life on November 18, 2007 at 3:20 PM
France is in BIG Trouble.
Agrippa2k on November 18, 2007 at 3:22 PM
O’Reilly stated, very plainly, that this movie will cause Americans to die. He cannot take that position and then accept ads for the movie. It just doesn’t fly.
progressoverpeace on November 18, 2007 at 3:22 PM
That is like a beer commercial during a soap opera
Or
A Feminine itch cream ad during the super bowl
Talk about missing the bulls eye on your target demographic.
Shees!
TheSitRep on November 18, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Bigger Video at MSN Movies
Agrippa2k on November 18, 2007 at 3:23 PM
I think it’s the most likely too. I mean I dont picture a cackling Mark Cuban against a glowing red background tossing a sack of 30 pieces of silver to a shamed Fox advertising exec.
It was probably just “Place this on the Factor” which wouldnt seem an odd request given the shows ratings.
But I guess we’ll find out.
Dash on November 18, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Hmm I’ll have to look at this again, the trailer I saw there was too small to make out the subtitles. And I see the following at the IMDB of the movie:
Sean Penn … (voice: English version)
Dash on November 18, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Wow, I actually didn’t even pass this along because I didn’t think it was news. Also, I don’t remember the MSNBC thing, but CNN used to try to advertise on Fox quite a bit.
I assumed that the second I saw it, because I’ve only seen it air during the Factor. I think it was on again during the 11pm airing as well.
I emailed O’Reilly to ask if we ought to boycott his show until he throws his weight around at Fox to get the ad pulled.
RightWinged on November 18, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Thanks for the heads up. I will take the fam see that movie on opening day.
http://www.sonyclassics.com/persepolis/main.html
TheSitRep on November 18, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Of course Cuban wants his ad to run during The Factor. It’s got a huge audience so lots of people will see the it. Unless you record the show and fast forward through the commercials.
Oldnuke on November 18, 2007 at 3:44 PM
Someone wrote in to O’Reilly about other cable news networks advertising on Fox and he read the letter. His explaination in short was that Fox will take their money.
Regarding Redated ads, my brother told me Olbermann rubbed it into O’Reilly’s face last week on air. My brother thinks Bill O’Reilly is beyond ridiculous, and believes this is just another O’Reilly blunder to prove his already proven case.
O’Reilly’s producers allegedly bought the ads, whether Bill knew or not, who knows.
It’s kind of stupid though, really when you think of the ranting and raving he went through over Mark Cuban.
AprilOrit on November 18, 2007 at 3:51 PM
1) I am positive I heard BO specifically say what he was suggesting (signs) was “NOT a boycott“.
2) Wouldn’t you think there might be some contractual obligation on the part of the network (and its employees) with its sponsors/advertisers at the very least NOT TO BOYCOTT their featured products.
NightmareOnKStreet on November 18, 2007 at 3:54 PM
That’s been going on since MSNBC went on the air. I have no problems with that. This is just business and is more embarassing to MSNBC (CNN also ran ads, hidden in car commercials).
I agree that it’s an O’Reilly blunder, though that doesn’t make Cuban or the movie any less anti-American.
If Bill didn’t know what the ads were on his show, then I think that is pretty lame. It’s not as if the list is so huge.
Yep. I wouldn’t have any problems with O’Reilly being mad about it and saying that it would never happen again, but his defense is more than a little contrived. It’s not that big of a deal, to me, but just a shame.
progressoverpeace on November 18, 2007 at 3:59 PM
The macro point that everyone here is missing? Simple…
The political Right in this nation has the money but does not use it to fund and promote popular media products to a traditionally-minded audience to any significant degree. Period.
There are literally thousands of traditionally-minded American multimillionaires and quite a few billionaires with similar mindsets. Yet I can count on one hand the number of those who have money invested in popular entertainment.
You’re never going to affect change until MONEY IS SPENT.
Liberals understand this–apparently conservatives don’t.
ScottMcC on November 18, 2007 at 4:29 PM
The Factor is Fox’s highest rated show, right? And they probably have many advertisers competing for limited spots, right?
So why would they choose a Redacted ad to run during his show? Did Cuban pay double the rate or something?
Zach on November 18, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Does anyone know, as in cite a real source, if Bill has any jurisdiction over the type of ads that run during his show? Do his producers? Is there anyone here in the business who can enlighten us?
It seems too cut and dry (and too easy) to blame Bill before the facts are presented, no matter what the opinion or what it seems. Come’ on, we even have someone citing Olberman as if he matters.
I just don’t see a blunder on Bill’s part unless he himself, or his producers have total control over ad sales and content, right?
geckomon on November 18, 2007 at 4:57 PM
And after reading Cuban’s blog, it’s apparent he offers nothing for O’Reilly but a damned if you do, damned if you don’t attitude.
In fact it may be commendable that Fox reflects a free speech philosophy by allowing the ad to run, despite how contrary the opinion is. They already give Geraldo air time, don’t they?
geckomon on November 18, 2007 at 5:08 PM
I see Citgo oil commercials on Fox News all the time, too.
crosspatch on November 18, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Simple math. Cuban pays an arm and a leg for an ad for a product that the great majority of O’Reilly’s viewers will not buy. Keeps the attention on Redacted, which for the typical Fox viewer is something bad, and brings some money home. Bonus point: Fox gives a place for all types of positions. I saw it and thought that the only stupid there was Cuban.
Ropera on November 18, 2007 at 6:44 PM
I ran a 30 second commercial for one of our businesses on O’Reilly’s show.
It was actually pretty cheap. 100 bucks. But that was on a local Time-Warner area in Houston.
I asked my Time-Warner rep why I saw a CNN commercial on Fox news. He told me that the local people get to run what ever the want in their allocated time.
30 sec commercials can be as low as 6 bucks, at weird hours and on low rated shows.
TheSitRep on November 18, 2007 at 7:56 PM
Fair and balanced. And the only one that is.
Griz on November 18, 2007 at 8:26 PM
cubans an ass. I made a comment on his website. told him I was an army officer and was personally offended by his movie.
comment was deleted…. screw him.
BadBrad on November 18, 2007 at 9:05 PM
I think the bigger question is why do the makers of “Redacted” believe that viewers of Bill O’Reilly would want to see their movie?
SoulGlo on November 18, 2007 at 10:21 PM
The letter Bill received and read on air was about CNN, not MSNBC actually.
AprilOrit on November 18, 2007 at 10:29 PM
I wonder if BoR will calculate the portion of his salary paid by that particular ad, and donate the money to a charity of somekind.
If he’s smart, he’ll use any funds aquired that way to buy more body armor for the troops in the field who will surely be in more danger when Redacted opens internationally.
That might win him back some of the credibility points he lost with me because of his poor performance regarding The Stache.
soundingboard on November 19, 2007 at 4:52 AM
Who cares about the Factor if Michelle Malkin is not on it any longer? The factor without Michelle Malkin is like going to a Bruce Springsteen concert and being told that Mr. Springsteen has a sore throat and isn’t here tonight so instead your’e getting Bruce Hornsby!
Larraby on November 19, 2007 at 10:03 AM
I bet he’ll rant and rave and accuse all the accusers (the people questioning why the ad was shown) of being pinheads for questioning it/him in the first place.
It seems like this man seldom apologizes.
AprilOrit on November 19, 2007 at 10:23 AM
America GETS the Runs on Duncan…
max1 on November 19, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Comment pages: