Why Fox News Rejected our Clean Energy Ad

When VoteVets.org released our latest clean energy ad titled "Alarm" we approached Fox News about making an ad buy on their network. To me, while Fox News' neoconservative constituency usually has misguided ideas about how to secure our country, they at least understand that it is important.

As Politico, ThinkProgress, AmericaBlog, and MMFA have reported today, Saudi oil funded Fox News rejected our ad stating that it was "too confusing". From Oliver Willis at MMFA:

It's interesting that Fox News is refusing the ads, and apparently using confusion as some sort of justification. For instance, Fox regularly buys print advertising for themselves in newspapers and trade publications, yet I've never heard of a Fox ad being rejected because readers might confuse the network with actual news (they act more like a PAC nowadays). Or perhaps Fox felt VoteVets ads might create some sort of cognitive dissonance for viewers who have become used to the network's shoddy coverage of environmental issues?

Furthermore, what kind of standards does advertising on Fox adhere to when it rejects VoteVets' work, yet has no problem at all running ads for Survival Seeds (your defense against "emerging totalitarianism")?

Faiz Shakir at CAP:

It's unclear what Fox News' motivations are. As Media Matters has documented, the network is a reliable source of misinformation on clean energy reform. Interestingly, Saudi oil tycoon Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns a 7 percent stake in Fox News' parent company News Corp, making him the largest shareholder outside the family of CEO Rupert Murdoch. But Murdoch has said the he is for a mandatory cap on carbon emissions and believes that Fox News ought to be covering the issue differently.

Joe Subday from AmericaBlog:

According to FOX News executives, this ad is "too confusing."... It seems pretty clear cut that climate change affects national security[.] I guess if people don't believe in climate change, then tying climate change to national security would be confusing.

Here is what isn't confusing: According to the Center for American Progress, an 80 Percent Reduction Of Carbon Emissions By 2050, Would Cut Iran's Oil Revenue By $1.8 Trillion Or $100 Million A Day.

There's nothing confusing about the link between oil and terrorist funding, and even the most dyed-in-the-wool neocons agree on that point. The only confusing thing here is why FOX News would reject an ad that calls on Congress to defund our enemies by finding new sources of energy.