You have a point, Danny, and common sense is a rare, heady thing — the kind of thing that makes some pass out when they’re around it. Can’t have that happening in those news rooms.

By the way, my daughter lives in New York, so I called her about this, oh, about 3:00pm NYC time that day. She said, “Huh? I don’t know what you’re talking about.” This is the response I get from a kid who’s going to school up there. Later she said, “Mom, stuff like this goes on all the time up here and it doesn’t make the news.” Great. Then she proceeded to tell me of all the horrific things I’ve been missing. Man, that made me feel good. Maybe I’d rather see the ED ad.

I know Fox didn’t intend to show me a Viagra ad. I know it was all automated. But then again, this is a major news organization. Yeah, I do expect someone over there to be thinking hmm, we’re putting out a live feed of something that either might turn ugly or where people might be concerned about whether there’s real danger. You know, flip that switch to turn the ads off for a bit.

I’m hoping it’s something they’ll think about more in the future. Put in a crawl ad if you absolutely must monetize ever bit of video content you put out. But I want more thought, and I don’t think any was given here.

But this wasn’t a tragedy, or any kind of confirmed event at all – bomb scares happen all the time, in many major metros. My guess is that once there was actually something to report – if something had in fact happened- they would bump up the coverage – it would be front and center – and without the interruption of ads. Because at that point, again, they’d want to keep the viewers on their site.

With live streaming, sure the potential exists for a cut from an ad to a scene that you wouldn’t want your brand in front of. But I wouldn’t want my kids in front of that either (death/destruction/people getting killed) so I think caution and consideration on all sides needs to be taken when deciding what to live stream, and what to put ads (and kids) in front of.

The new phase of always on journalism is going to be met with some bumps, but in this case, I don’t think what Fox did was crass or intended. I think it was the result of an automated system (ad platform) doing what it is programmed to do. And I think those instructions would have changed the minute the nature of the news changed, and there had been an actual tragedy vs. another report of something unknown/unsubstantiated.

This wasn’t a tragedy. This was a scare. But the same principle applies. You had people not sure what was going on — even the news organizations didn’t — hence putting out the live webcasts. If you don’t know the situation, and there could be a tragedy or you’re trying to get breaking news of a serious nature out, yeah, drop the commercials. Don’t show the ad. Showing the Viagra ad just added insult to injury to me.

Aside from the viewer concerns, it’s bad for the advertiser. Do you want to be Target, having your ad show just before the live webcast potentially cuts to a scene of death and destruction?

I think when a situation is more known, when there’s less uncertainty, when you’re pretty sure the immediate emergency is over — I’m not going to see dead bodies, death and destruction, have people who are possibly frantically worried tuning in, then bring the ads back. You know, like for coverage of a freeway chase

Are you advocating for commercial free broadcasts of all kinds on all platforms during all emergencies – or alleged emergencies – or just for specific types of advertising during these times? I don’t see the difference (web ad vs. commercial).