This idea really comes down to a choice that the media companies have to make between what views they support more. There is some choice in the hands of the companies pulling their advertisements, but assuming they will automatically pull their advertisements, choice lies to the media companies. They have to make a decision of whether to support advertisement aimed at stopping consumerism, helping people not to get addicted and over all perhaps higher moral standards then most beer, cigarette or clothing advertisements. A good percent of cigarette and beer advertisements target teenagers, even though their use of the product is illegal. This idea is present where it is not as black and white wrong, such as with McDonalds targeting little kids and families in using their product. McDonalds advertisement goals are to get people hooked when they are young and keep them for life. Versus groups like "the truth" and adbusters who just want to send a message that there are other options then these businesses offer.
What happened to equal right to freedom of speech. It is the business or news agency right to deny add space or time on the businesses own will. But how do they justify allowing beer adds and cigarette adds on television, with its known harms to people and that at times they target teenage crowds. However they deny other companies based on objection of personal opinion. Does that mean that their personal views support beer drinking or cigarette smoking or that they choose not to want to threaten their income from other companies advertising on their network. If other companies more ethical companies, such as adbusters, Michael Moore advertisements, "the truth" want more add space but are denied on account of their message how does that not affect capital. Does just capital come into playing when picking advertising or should the meaning and ideas behind the ads matter? It truly becomes a choice of pure ethical values.