Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Bailey on “un-American” CRT, election security, and rolling back the minimum wage and cannabis legalization
Next Post: A not so happy birthday for CEJA
Posted in:
* I heard this morning that ABC7 and WGN had followed the lead of NBC5 and stopped airing the “Scream” ad paid for by the People Who Play By The Rules PAC. I asked the committee if this was true and they confirmed it today. Here’s Dan Proft…
All the network affiliates approved the ad. Then came the push back from the targets the ‘news’ stations serve, Gov. Pritzker and Mayor Lightfoot, and other enthusiasts of lawlessness and unchecked violence and down came my ad. It began with NBC and, since all these network affiliate executives share a brain, the rest of the stations, with one notable exception, followed. The video of the attack is perfectly fine for use by the ‘news’ stations if it’s in furtherance of their salacious ‘if it bleeds it leads’ coda. But if someone takes the attack in question, same video, and connects the dots to the people who’ve abdicated their responsibilities for providing public safety, well, then down it must come. It’s indicative of the lengths the Chicago Democrat Media Complex will go to protect their own–and I’m not talking about their viewers.
Discuss.
Also, as we’ve discussed before, the video does appear to have been altered.
*** UPDATE *** From the victim’s attorney…
Rich – I represent the victim in the Scream Ad that Dan Proft has been running and I just wanted to note that the victim was never asked or consulted by them regarding the use of that video. Not that she would have agreed to allow it, but at least she should have been given a heads up that it was coming out. She wishes to remain anonymous and heal from this whole ordeal and the Scream ad isn’t helping. All the best. Tom
Thomas More Leinenweber
Leinenweber Baroni & Daffada, LLC
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 1:13 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Bailey on “un-American” CRT, election security, and rolling back the minimum wage and cannabis legalization
Next Post: A not so happy birthday for CEJA
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
==same video==
As has been documented here and elsewhere: Nope.
Comment by Roadrager Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 1:16 pm
A fake video.
Doesn’t get aired on TV.
Proft tries fake mad, too.
A haiku.
Comment by Skokie Man Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 1:17 pm
Thank goodness that the media has had enough of the fear mongers spreading fear and hate everyday. Proft only knows how to run hateful and fearful adds and campaigns. He’s involved with both Baileys and Pekau’s campaigns and just look at both. One is all about violence and fear the other is about fear over gay people.
Comment by Old time Independent Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 1:19 pm
I think this decision is justified, apart from any political message in the video. Just the sound of it could be distressing to viewers. It’s akin to listening to a radio ad while driving that imitates the sound of a police siren or a car crash. Media outlets don’t like to unnecessarily distress their audience. And we’ve already discussed the difference between legitimate media reports showing unaltered video to assist in the arrest of the offenders - where they often warn viewers in advance that the video is disturbing, and manipulated footage used for political gain.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 1:23 pm
===The video of the attack is perfectly fine for use by the ‘news’ stations if it’s in furtherance of their salacious ‘if it bleeds it leads’ coda. But if someone takes the attack in question, same video, and connects the dots===
I’ll stop Dan there, thanks.
There was this train of thought yesterday as I recall… here.
A commenter wondered aloud about news and ads
The difference *is* not only context of the use, but also the exploitation of the idea “a white woman isn’t safe in Chicago”
And I’ll stop all this “it is what it is” nonsense too.
If you’re telling me this video exists, as it does, that means other video exists, and that victim might be a POC…
… but Proft chose *this* video, with enhanced screams of a white woman
In context to a narrative of a political bend…
… no way is it the same. Not even in the neighborhood of street where the parking lot of the ballpark sits.
Proft is continually disingenuous… and LOVES the coverage tgis is getting… exactly like the coverage Ives got for that disgusting ad Proft ran then.
Zero accidents here. Proft is so angry that he wants to make sure he’s quoted correctly.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 1:23 pm
When Jim Glasgow asked to be removed from Profts ad, Proft did it almost instantly with no explanation given from Proft.
When someone else decides to remove Proft’s ads, it’s a ‘democrat media complex conspiracy’.
It’s interesting how the same situation is a conspiracy when someone else does it, but not when he does it.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 1:24 pm
“same video”
It’s not. It was altered.
Any defenses that fail to account for that are irrelevant.
– MrJM
Comment by MisterJayEm Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 1:29 pm
== Chicago Democrat Media Complex ==
Says the man who created a bogus statewide media complex to bash democrats.
Man do these guys project a lot.
Comment by Henry Francis Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 1:29 pm
===Says the man who created a bogus statewide media complex to bash democrats.===
“We need alternative facts, and I need a billing way for my grift”
- Fake Dan Proft
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 1:31 pm
Dan got his hand caught in the cookie jar and now he’s throwing a tantrum. Wahhhhhh. Waaahhhhh.
BTW, I still haven’t heard whether the victim is ok with this. If she’s not, that the end of the discussion.
Comment by New Day Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 1:33 pm
“Since they all share the same brain.”
No, Proft, but they do have a heart. You clearly do not, your craveness knows no bounds.
Comment by Commissar Gritty Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 1:34 pm
Over/under 30 mgs of Adderall when Proft wrote that PR
Comment by wowie Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 1:35 pm
My guess is that stations would refuse to run the clip even if it was actors as part of a trailer for a found footage horror movie. Proft is just lying to get the ad a tiny bit more play, and because he’s a whiny baby who loves to play the victim.
Though if he’s gonna demand the “free speech” platform nonsense, I’d love to see the guidelines for advertisers in his pink slime network. Would he let JB take out a full pager explaining Proft’s scam?
Comment by vern Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 1:39 pm
Proft gets rejected and then throws a fit.
Got it.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 1:41 pm
All Proft has to say is that he got prior permission FROM the victim to use it, edited as a political ad, and I’ll shutup about it.
Comment by XonXoff Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 1:45 pm
Maybe don’t use a fancy word like coda if you don’t know what it means, Dan.
Comment by Big Dipper Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 1:55 pm
This from the guy who publishes bogus “newspapers” with questionable “articles” without bylines.
Rich guys whining about fairness always make me stop what I’m doing and pay attention. /s
Maybe Proft can get a better shake in Florida with his buddy Griffin.
Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 2:01 pm
The TV ad is paid media. The lashing out is earned media. Same ol same ol.
Comment by Socially DIstant watcher Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 2:07 pm
Proft is upset as with all the attention, he’s afraid Floyd Brown will claim “copyright infringement” and sue for damages.
Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 2:16 pm
If I were him, I would fix whatever it is that the stations say caused them to pull it and run it some more. I haven’t heard the more normal guy on the street chatter about an ad since the Dawn Clark Netsch pool table ad. (I know that reference is from the way way back machine..lol).
Comment by Tom Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 2:28 pm
==Proft is upset as with all the attention==
No he’s not. This is everything he wanted.
Helping Bailey is just fine if it happens, but it’s not the goal.
Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 2:41 pm
What does Proft have on Uihlein? For the life of me I have never understood how Proft can pry so much money from the old man.
Comment by Nagidam Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 2:47 pm
You know you’re over the target when you start taking flak.
And he is apparently taking ALOT of flak.
Comment by Occam Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 2:50 pm
A friend of mine did an FB post on this. She is the mom of a 4 year old and a 2 year old. Because the ad starts so suddenly, she doesn’t have enough time to change the channel or turn down the volume before it makes the 4 year old cry and howl in terror, which of course triggers the 2 year old to do the same. She and the 40 commenters on that thread all seemed to agree that the ad should go or at least have some sort of warning about how graphic it is.
Comment by levivotedforjudy Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 2:54 pm
Regarding the update: I think we can close the book on the “newsworthiness” dodge here. Proft took the video off a website without asking, doctored the audio to better serve his own ends, and never thought about the victim for a second. Craven, sloppy, and effective only to the audience already receptive to everything he has to offer. That’s the Dan Proft guarantee.
Comment by Roadrager Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 2:55 pm
Dan Proft; Victimize the Victim For Politics
===the Scream ad isn’t helping===
NOT speculation, Dan.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 2:58 pm
If there’s anyone left to pull the ad, the victim’s statement will probably make them do it.
Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 3:00 pm
To the update:
If there were any justice in the world, that statement would be the end of Proft’s career in politics.
Comment by vern Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 3:02 pm
What I’m most disappointed in is the lack of discussion on the merits of the underlying issue the ad attempts to highlight. Solving the crime problem that’s obviously impacting Chicago businesses (McD’s this week) and residents (the victims) has been put on the back burner time and again. No one is addressing the fear seeping into the idea of “Chicago” and that’s a downward spiral.
Comment by NI You Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 3:07 pm
-What I’m most disappointed in is the lack of discussion on the merits of the underlying issue the ad attempts to highlight.-
The merits of issues tend to get lost when they are sensationalized and manipulated beyond recognition.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 3:13 pm
===No one is addressing the fear seeping into the idea of “Chicago” and that’s a downward spiral.===
Proft should highlight that instead of choosing to amplify the scream of a white female victim in Chicago.
It’s an odd thing, kinda-sorta going “both sides” when the wholly disingenuous Proft is now not a bad actor but also a similar “ignore-er” of the… lemme get this exacting… one sec… wait…
downward spiral
I wanna get the hyperbole correct when there’s a complaint about… hyperbole
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 3:13 pm
===is the lack of discussion on the merits===
C’mon. You’re cherry picking here. Not only is no one preventing you from discussing it on this post, there are two substantive posts just today
https://capitolfax.com/2022/09/15/mcdonald%e2%80%99s-ceo-to-city-let-us-know-the-plan-so-we-can-support-it/
https://capitolfax.com/2022/09/15/the-trespassing-issue/
Stop whining.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 3:15 pm
==What I’m most disappointed in is the lack of discussion on the merits of the underlying issue the ad attempts to highlight. ==
Show me a serious attempt by the ILGOP or Dan Proft to have a “discussion on the merits” of any actual policy proposal, and maybe you’ll have a good point worth engaging with.
Or alternatively, show how anyone is actively preventing any such discussion from occurring.
Comment by Homebody Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 3:18 pm
Here’s a discussion of the merits. JB signed a law increasing funding for law enforcement. Bailey voted against it.
And I’m glad that others have noticed that the audio was edited, that definitely was a red flag when I saw that.
Comment by The Velvet Frog Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 3:37 pm
==What I’m most disappointed in is the lack of discussion on the merits of the underlying issue the ad attempts to highlight.==
The underlying issue the ad was trying to address was that not enough people were paying attention to Dan Proft.
If you want to talk about crime in Chicago, I struggle to take you seriously when you claim that no one wants to find a solution to it. The problem is that many people, even if they’re all acting good faith, have many different ideas on how to do it.
But it’s not all or nothing; we can seriously search for (and even implement) solutions without indulging Dan Proft’s gutter feeding.
Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 3:48 pm
Here’s a merit of the underlying issue. When I see that video it makes me want to see better gun safety laws. And right now states are having a hard time doing that because of a partisan supreme court.
Comment by The Velvet Frog Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 4:01 pm
Since the victim did not approve usage of the video TV stations should refuse to put the video on air.
Comment by illinifan Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 4:26 pm
Dear Mr. Leinenweber:
I truly hope you are a shrewd attorney and can come up with a novel theory that would put Mr. Proft et al on a collision course with the BK Court.
Comment by DEE Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 4:34 pm
To the Merits:
I’ve been telling Proft and Bailey for awhile, when you say “Crime”, Republicans think “More cops” and Democrats and Independents think “More gun control.”
Here’s some more free advice: Democrats have a huge, huge partisan advantage in Illinois. Talking about partisan issues promotes a normal, partisan outcome of the election, which spells certain defeat for every Republican running statewide.
I don’t mind giving Dan “Tin Cup” Proft free advice because I know he won’t follow it. Proft gonna Proft.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 6:13 pm
Now that Mr. Leinenweber, the victim’s attorney, has been heard from, all stations should pull the ad. Or, if Proft has any sense of decency, he should just pull it himself. Hah, just kidding about that thought. As has been said on this site before, grifters gonna grift.
Comment by West Side the Best Side Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 6:14 pm
To the update:
Mr. Proft,
[banned word salad (and punctuation)]
Comment by XonXoff Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 7:58 pm
Dan Proft you craven creep. The victim does not want this. You made the sound worse. How dare you.
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 8:25 pm
=Talking about partisan issues promotes a normal, partisan outcome of the election, which spells certain defeat for every Republican running statewide.=
During the course of the pandemic I called Durkin to task for allowing Bailey to become the standard bearer of the party while the minority leader stood by silently. Fast forward two years and he’s now at the top of the ticket, and by a convincing margin. The die on all of this was cast awhile ago. And as for Proft, he’s enjoying every minute of it. If he can exploit and cash in on the implosion of the ILGOP all the better. Neither Bailey or Proft care much about winning. Their just two different types of grifters.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 9:15 pm
I had to finally call a Senatorial candidate in another state a gutless p—y just to get him to call me back over a similar situation — He blamed a PAC but it was quickly resolved.
The victims attorney sounds very professional. I hope the victim finds peace.
Comment by XonXoff Thursday, Sep 15, 22 @ 10:54 pm
Not only is the ad difficult to watch, but the conclusion that this act of violence is directly related to Pritzker and Lightfoot is insulting to the intelligence of the voters.
Comment by Loop Lady Friday, Sep 16, 22 @ 8:07 am