
"13" in the stall - "Vote For Change 2008" sticker on the wall behind her.
A "Vote for Change 2008" bumpersticker was affixed to the wall in the bathroom stall scene in the final episode of House on Fox networks two nights ago. Fox is often decried as a bastion of conservative thought and speech (particularly their news channel). Yet one of their best shows was clearly showing an endorsement for the democratic front runner, Barack Obama.
I don't know the specific rules governing the use of public airwaves to provide commericals for the various candidates though I'm sure there are many regulations doing just that. Thus, I couldn't help but wonder was something wrong going on by having this bumper sticker on air for a full scene. I would guess that it was on display for at least 15 seconds. Does Fox now have to embed an advertisement for the other candidates into some other show for an equal amount of time? If not does the presence of the sticker, even though it didn't actually say "Obama" constitute a campaign contribution?
I will update this story as I learn more about the rules and repercussions of the bumper sticker (if there are any)
I saw the sticker, but didn't think much about it. It's amazing to me that people call Fox News the bastion of Conservatives, because they differ in their interpretation of the news. I like Fox News because I see stories that I don't normally see on the other MSMs.
I can't remember ever seeing an actual campaign object in a show before.
The candidates themselves have appeared on many different shows, and I would consider them a "campaign object."
SNL, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report
I don't really consider The Daily Show and Colbert Report talk shows.
I don't know how much credibility these have, but I have been told that Boston Legal endorsed Obama in its season finale.
Interesting topic.
I am not sure of the answer.
There's no more requirement for "equal time" so that's out the window. The Dems have been trying to bring it back but with little success.
It doesn't constitute a campaign contribution b/c the Obama camp didn't (presumably) get any input as to how, when, and where it would air... kind of like how a paper endorsing a candidate doesn't count as an advertisement and thus there's no contribution.
I saw it too and thought it was pretty cool though.
I don't believe any tv channel can put up unlimited free commericals for one candidate and not do so for the others can they? Wouldn't that give that candidate an unfair advantage? This sticker on the show is a "commerical" and thus, to me, seems like it would fit into the same category as a free commerical broadcast.
Good point.
I am not sure, however, that this placement would qualify as a commercial.
It MAY, and this is just a guess, fall under creative license. For example, the writer could claim he wanted to make the statement that House supported Obama, to add dimension to his character.
It could also be that no one of import noticed the sticker, and no one has yet made a stink about it.
It could also be that the sanction for this type of violation is so small that the writer/director/producer does not care about the risk of the sanction.
In any case, good catch.
I'm not sure how input into how, when and where it were to air has any bearing on whether or not it would be a contribution either. None of the campaigns have any input on how much money I send to them but it is still a contribution.
Right, but they can use that money for things over which they have control over the how, when, and where.
There are a bunch of rules about what constitutes an advertisement for a candidate and what doesn't, mostly because of groups like MoveOn.org. I know you can't mention a candidate by name and I also know you can't let a candidate or campaign direct your advertising campaign or have any knowledge of it that's not generally public.
I don't believe any tv channel can put up unlimited free commericals for one candidate and not do so for the others can they? Wouldn't that give that candidate an unfair advantage? This sticker on the show is a "commerical" and thus, to me, seems like it would fit into the same category as a free commerical broadcast.
Not as such, but they certainly can express their political opinions. Consider Fox News. Now by almost any sane estimation isn't little more than a 24 hour commercial for the Bush Administration. What stops them? Do they have to do equal time?
PACs and what not have to pay for their commercials and they have to follow some kind of reporting guidelines I would imagine. If a TV show or channel were to behave like a PAC wouldn't they have to follow the same rules?
PACs are different and, again, we're talking about political organizations. PACs generally just give money. 501(c)4s (like MoveOn) can use their money to lobby for legislation. At the end of the day though, I'm pretty sure that Fox or NBC or whomever can air whatever partisan content they'd like.
It just doesn't seem like it is as cut and dry as you make it out to be. With all of our rules and regulations about everything it seems like this type of free advertising would fall under the auspices of some regulation.
It would, but look how the show was very careful so as to put it in the background, not mention a specific candidate or party, and not talk about it explicitly.
Fox is so often cited as a conservative company, I'm surprised it wasn't a McCain type sticker in the stall.
Good point.
I'm betting Hugh Laurie wanted it in the scene, so he pulled some strings. ;-)
"A vote for change" is too vague to be in support of one candidate. All three of the major candidates, Clinton, McCain, and Obama, are talking about change; so that could really be in support of any candidate.
Even if that is in support of Obama, it does not break any election laws. It is not funded by Obama and Fox putting up the bumper sticker is protected by freedom of speech.
Even if this was somehow funded by the Obama campaign, it would not violate any election laws. All three major candidates have appeared on television shows to promote themselves. This would be no different.
Clinton and McCain have also been talking about change.
clearly this sticker in the bathroom is an Obama sticker
It's interesting that it was in the bathroom.
I do think, though, that the "vague" argument could be the key, regarding any possible sanctions.
The actress who plays 13 (and the guy who plays Cutner, incidentally) both campaigned for Obama. My guess is she stuck it up there.
I see it more as a mockery of Barack Obama. It associates him with a bathroom!
House is a conservative show. It's all about a Strict Father-figure who knows best for everyone. Remember when Mitt Romney was the presumptive Republican nominee, and a Mormon just "happened" to pop up on the show?
I just thought I would mention I blogged on the message board about the "change '08" sticker. It appears they didn't like the fact I mentioned it- as my blog under "ask the writers" is now gone. I was just disappointed that they would use their show to display a political statement.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |