CBS Allows Pro-Life Advocacy Ad, Denies Gay Dating Site Ad For Super Bowl

Link

Quote :

Despite rebuffing previous attempts by left-leaning organizations such as moveon.org and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to advertise during the Super Bowl, CBS has done an about-face by agreeing to run a pair of incendiary advocacy commercials during next week's game. Sponsored by the Christian group Focus on the Family, they'll feature college football sensation Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam, pitching an anti-abortion message as a kind of moral antacid to the goofy beer and snack spots showcased during the game, which is considered the holy grail of TV advertising.

Now normally I'd not have too much issue with "advocacy ads" - First Amendment and all that. But it has been a long, long practice that the Super Bowl is a politically neutral venue. In 2004 CBS rejected an ad by the United Church of Christ stating that they welcomed homosexuals into their congregation, claiming the ad "touches on and/or takes a position on one side of a current controversial issue of public importance".

Apparently the Tebow ad (in which his mother states that despite her doctor in the Philippines telling her that she was risking her life by carrying Tim to term, she chose to and that's why abortion is bad) does not touch on or take one side of a current controversial issue. Okay, then!

It doesn't help that CBS turned around and denied an ad by a gay dating website.

Quote :

Super Bowl network CBS rejected an ad Friday from ManCrunch.com, a gay dating Web site.

"After reviewing the ad, which is entirely commercial in nature, our standards and practices department decided not to accept this particular spot," said CBS spokeswoman Shannon Jacobs. "We are always open to working with a client on alternative submissions."

Can we say double standard? Sure, I knew that you could.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the liberal media.

TheHermit wrote:

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the liberal media.

...don't you mean the conservative media? The liberal media is generally pro-choice, and pro-minorities having an equal voice. This smacks of conservatism.

Also, yuck. I don't want ANY politics in my Super Bowl, liberal, conservative, anything!

Maximilia wrote:

TheHermit wrote:

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the liberal media.

...don't you mean the conservative media? The liberal media is generally pro-choice, and pro-minorities having an equal voice. This smacks of conservatism.

I think they were shooting for sarcasm there.

This is the same network that made a big ass spectacle of a woman's accidentally exposed nipple. Not surprising to say the least.

TheHermit wrote:

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the liberal media.

Wait, what the hell are you t-

Ah, well played. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Spotts1701 wrote:

Maximilia wrote:

TheHermit wrote:

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the liberal media.

...don't you mean the conservative media? The liberal media is generally pro-choice, and pro-minorities having an equal voice. This smacks of conservatism.

I think they were shooting for sarcasm there.

Ahhh... perhaps they need a SarcMark! XD

Darn you, Spotts, I've been very carefully avoiding any mention of this anywhere where anyone on this site could see it for over two weeks! I was hoping no one would hear about it until they actually saw the ad! Would have been so much more fun watching hand-wringing after the fact... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

KelinciHutan wrote:

Darn you, Spotts, I've been very carefully avoiding any mention of this anywhere where anyone on this site could see it for over two weeks! I was hoping no one would hear about it until they actually saw the ad! Would have been so much more fun watching hand-wringing after the fact... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I would have ignored it for the most part and blamed it on the man-crush that the media has on Tebow, if not for them squashing the other ad.

Surprisingly, most of the complaints about it that I've seen are apolitical in nature and more along the lines of "Think of the children!"

Wonder if they'd have let an ad run featuring a grieving husband talking about how his wife died from pregnancy complications.

Magic eight ball says no.

Well this is unexpected.

I'm not entirely surprised, though this does suck.

CBS is the station that gave us Touched By An Angel and Joan of Arcadia after all (though Joan was an awesome show). I sort of expected the execs to be leaning toward the more conservative Christian side, and to make decisions that might favor such views, regardless of what they state as their official reasoning for accepting/rejecting certain ads.

It also gave us RatherGate and gave Sarah Palin the platform to utterly destroy her credibility. But then I guess the News shows and the network itself aren't necessarily the same thing.

I've heard some of the sports talking heads giving Tebow props for putting his faith and beliefs out there, for good or for ill.

I'd give him a lot more credit if he wasn't hitching his wagon to a bunch of whackjobs like James Dobson and the Focus On Family bunch...

Spotts1701 wrote:

Surprisingly, most of the complaints about it that I've seen are apolitical in nature and more along the lines of "Think of the children!"

I've never understood this argument. OH NO, IF CHILDREN KNOW THAT GAY PEOPLE EXIST... =what?

ZoZo wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

Surprisingly, most of the complaints about it that I've seen are apolitical in nature and more along the lines of "Think of the children!"

I've never understood this argument. OH NO, IF CHILDREN KNOW THAT GAY PEOPLE EXIST... =what?

But see, you're sane that way.
For the insane people around here, the argument continues as follows:
IF THEY KNOW = THEY MIGHT CATCH THE GAY/THINK THAT BEING GAY IS OKAY = THEY ARE SINNING SINNERS WHO SIN BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS GAY = EB0L - and since this place's "heartland" could be renamed to Jesusistan... *shrugs*

That said, this doesn't surprise me one bit. In the end, even if more tolerant souls happen to be in the majority, the morons who espouse trains of thought like the one above scream louder, so they end up being catered to by the media.

ZoZo wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

Surprisingly, most of the complaints about it that I've seen are apolitical in nature and more along the lines of "Think of the children!"

I've never understood this argument. OH NO, IF CHILDREN KNOW THAT GAY PEOPLE EXIST... =what?

Actually, the "Think of the children!" argument was being applied against the Focus on the Family commercial, not against the gay dating site one.

Spotts1701 wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

Surprisingly, most of the complaints about it that I've seen are apolitical in nature and more along the lines of "Think of the children!"

I've never understood this argument. OH NO, IF CHILDREN KNOW THAT GAY PEOPLE EXIST... =what?

Actually, the "Think of the children!" argument was being applied against the Focus on the Family commercial, not against the gay dating site one.

Well I'm not surprised. I'd rather explain that some people are gay to my kids than have to explain abortion and the big old minefield surrounding ever mentioning it.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Actually, the "Think of the children!" argument was being applied against the Focus on the Family commercial, not against the gay dating site one.

I... holy crap, really? Color me flabbergasted. I still very much dislike the argument in general (seriously people, stop fucking sheltering your children, it only leads to the next generation of clueless morons), but it's interesting that for once, it's actually used against something with a religious agenda, not for it.

I personally think that CBS should just stop bringing its own agenda into the mix and show both commercials. I may disagree with one of the two, but you know what? They pay for the slot, it's their business what they are saying during the time they pay for, as long as they are not openly advocating illegal behavior.

Did I miss the part where CBS was under some obligation to sell their airtime in ways other than they damn well pleased?

gaijinguy wrote:

Did I miss the part where CBS was under some obligation to sell their airtime in ways other than they damn well pleased?

Oh, they aren't. However, they could have saved themselves a whole lot of bitchery from the public if they hadn't chosen sides. We certainly wouldn't be talking about it, as a nationwide TV network NOT picking sides in the neverending liberal-conservative struggle would be, y'know, not godawful. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Conversely, just because something's legal, it's not automatically not a dick move.

gaijinguy wrote:

Did I miss the part where CBS was under some obligation to sell their airtime in ways other than they damn well pleased?

Considering that for the last 2 decades or so every network has pretty much stated that the Super Bowl is "issue neutral", and that CBS' own past practices of rejecting issue ads during the Super Bowl makes this an extremely hypocritical action...then yes, you did.

Saleha wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

Surprisingly, most of the complaints about it that I've seen are apolitical in nature and more along the lines of "Think of the children!"

I've never understood this argument. OH NO, IF CHILDREN KNOW THAT GAY PEOPLE EXIST... =what?

But see, you're sane that way.
For the insane people around here, the argument continues as follows:
IF THEY KNOW = THEY MIGHT CATCH THE GAY/THINK THAT BEING GAY IS OKAY = THEY ARE SINNING SINNERS WHO SIN BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS GAY = EB0L

You left out the part where if a child asks why those two men are holding hands, the parent is obligated--OBLIGATED, I SAY--to explain homosexual sex in graphic detail.

Soylent Green wrote:

You left out the part where if a child asks why those two men are holding hands, the parent is obligated--OBLIGATED, I SAY--to explain homosexual sex in graphic detail.

See also: "Comprehensive Sex-Ed = Carte Blanche to fornicate wildly"

Soylent Green wrote:

You left out the part where if a child asks why those two men are holding hands, the parent is obligated--OBLIGATED, I SAY--to explain homosexual sex in graphic detail.

Ya know, I have never understood that. First of all, children today are not stupid. Most of them, unless they belong to staunchly Christian families who closely monitor what they watch on TV and use NetNanny have, most likely, stumbled across the concept of people being 'gay' by the time they're around 10.

The attitude they take depends entirely on how their parents react. When my niece Maddie was nine, the boys and Russ went out to California to visit my sister, and made a side-trip to their cousin Jenni's house. Maddie, who even at age nine was scary smart, happened to come across Morgan and Russ kissing on the back patio, came inside the house, and asked her mom why Uncle Morgan and Uncle Russ were kissing. To which her mother told her they loved each other, just like she and their dad loved each other, and that sometimes, people loved people who were the same sex they were, which was perfectly okay.

"Oh," says Maddie. "So they're like you and daddy?"

"Yes," Jenni said.

"Cool." And that was it, as far as Maddie was concerned. Mom said it was okay for two people of the same sex to love each other, end of discussion. She liked her uncles anyway, so it made no difference to her if Morgan and Russ were in love. And Jennifer didn't feel the need to explain it in graphic detail because of her age. I suspect that came later.

It reminds me of the joke I read where a little boy of about four comes into the house and says "Mommy, where did I come from?"

Well, his mother's been waiting for him to ask the question, so she gets out the books, and sits him down, and carefully explains to him about how a woman gets pregnant, and carries the baby in her womb, etc., etc.

So at the end of this hour-long explanation, she says to him "Now do you understand where you came from, Jimmy."

"Yeah," Jimmy says. "I just wondered cause the new kid who moved in next door says he came from Oregon."

Saleha wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

Actually, the "Think of the children!" argument was being applied against the Focus on the Family commercial, not against the gay dating site one.

I... holy crap, really? Color me flabbergasted. I still very much dislike the argument in general (seriously people, stop fucking sheltering your children, it only leads to the next generation of clueless morons), but it's interesting that for once, it's actually used against something with a religious agenda, not for it.

I personally think that CBS should just stop bringing its own agenda into the mix and show both commercials. I may disagree with one of the two, but you know what? They pay for the slot, it's their business what they are saying during the time they pay for, as long as they are not openly advocating illegal behavior.

CBS should stick with appropriate ads...all beer, all the time.