The Peacock is doing well enough, it seems, to reject seven-figure ad deals, as it did today by turning down an offer from conservative group Freedom’s Watch, the AP reports. It was not the ad, NBC said, that prompted the response, it was Freedom’s Watch’s website, which the network said was too political. Alan Wurtzel, head of NBC’s standards and practices, said the ad would have run if the group did not insist on including the website’s URL.

"We have a policy that prohibits acceptance of advertising that deals with issues of public controversy," Wurtzel told the AP. "This particular ad, in and of itself, is fine. It thanks the troops for their action overseas. We asked them to eliminate a URL address where a person is asked to contact elected officials and told not to cut and run on the war on terror."

Wurtzel called NBC’s policy “a long-term” one that “goes back decades.” He then went on to suggest that Freedom’s Watch might have refused to remove the URL because of the media attention NBC’s rejection of the ad would create. "Candidly, some folks have found that you get more attention when an ad is not accepted," he said.

It’s a fair point. Yet the question over who made more of a political statement – NBC or Freedom’s Watch – must be raised as well. That’s not to say that in rejecting a conservative ad on the basis of a company rule NBC has emerged as a liberal sympathizer (nor does it rule out that notion either). But what harm would NBC have done by running the ad, and allowing its audience to decide for itself?

Of course, as a business, they have every right to reject any and all advertisers as they please. In the course of this particular case, however, NBC might have said more about its opinions, beliefs, and philosophies than it intended.