quote: The 30-second ad, which is being bankrolled by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, reportedly will feature Tim and Pam telling their story of his birth. While pregnant with Tim, her fifth child, Pam fell seriously ill during a mission in the Philippines. Her condition was so severe, doctors told Pam to have an abortion. She refused, obviously, and along came Tim, one of the most decorated players in college football history.
I'm not so sure that it's a good idea. Trying to mix politics with football just seems wrong to me.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure to what degree that statement was sarcastic, but I can't think of any particular reason politics is worse than corporate greed (much as might disagree with this particular message).
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it seems like sort of a bummer for the Superbowl. people want to see half nekkid women dancing around, not serious issues.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is this politics? I mean is it an add about the legality of abortion or the morality? Because most pro-choices people I know say they're against abortion in general, just not for making it illegal.
posted
It seems like a unique story that one wouldn't want to make decisions based on. Another woman in her situation might have died.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, and I don't want to hear about it during the Superbowl. Particularly since they have refused to allow ads in the past from the other side of that argument.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hobbes has the right idea. That people will interpret the ad as politics probably just demonstrates how abortion debate has gone awry.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well there is no middle ground anymore. Either you're a baby killer or a bible beater. All of the sense has been squeezed right out of the debate until there's nothing left but the two most polar opinions being represented.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm....I'm uncomfortable with saying a group shouldn't be allowed to put out a commercial if they can pay for the time. I understand that they are paying full price for the ad, it's not as if CBS is giving the time away.
quote:Particularly since they have refused to allow ads in the past from the other side of that argument.
Have they? I didn't read the article. I disagree with that...I mean, if Planned Parenthood can pay for the time and wants to buy an ad they should have the same chance to purchase ad space as anyone else does.
The only thing I would want to see is that either commercial would handle the content and subject matter tastefully because the game is on rather early and kids do watch it. So my position is this commercial is okay with me, and so would a commercial for the other side. If you can pay for the ad space, have at it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And yet, the ad for a gay dating site was rejected.
Because the commercial involved two people passionately making out. Do you recall any other primetime commercials that have people making out passionately? Also, it didn't involve the natural coupling of male and female. Just eww.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "natural coupling of a male and female" is a political issue. So is abortion. Unless you'd like to argue that the first is a moral issue, in which case I'd argue, so is abortion.
As for people making out, please, have you seen Superbowl commercials? G-rated they ain't.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe civil unions or same-sex marriage would be political, but just making out would be political? This is a post-Ellen or post-Will and Grace world
Heck, I think there may even have been Star Trek commercials with that.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: It seems like a unique story that one wouldn't want to make decisions based on. Another woman in her situation might have died.
I'd be all for this ad if they also showed another with this alternative ending.
quote: And yet, the ad for a gay dating site was rejected.
I saw the ad and it is pretty harmless. It is a lot less graphic than many other Superbowl ads. I would have hoped for something much much better considering what they say they spent on making the ad.
The article I read said the the CBS sales department "had difficulty verifying the credit of the site to guarantee payment of the estimated $2.5 million cost to air the ad" which was responded to by the site's owners saying they "spent more than $100,000 on the ad and has raised $40 million from investors". I would think verifying that kind of money would be kinda easy. If CBS rejected it because of not being able to guarantee payment, then I would understand their decision. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
CBS's main reason is ““CBS Standards and Practices has reviewed your proposed Super Bowl ad and concluded that the creative is not within the Network’s Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday.” It is not clear what “the creative” references but one can guess." Not a valid reason IMO since many of the other 'creatives' are not well done either. CommercialPosts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you recall any other primetime commercials that have people making out passionately?
It isn't making out passionately but a gay kiss was done in 2007 Snickers Mechanic Kiss The ad was later pulled off of TV but did show
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Hmmm....I'm uncomfortable with saying a group shouldn't be allowed to put out a commercial if they can pay for the time. I understand that they are paying full price for the ad, it's not as if CBS is giving the time away.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Hell, I'm sure there are beer ads with two women.
I have a vague memory of a beer ad featuring eroticized female wrestling airing during the super bowl. Of course, the point of it was that men would enjoy watching, which I guess makes it less gay.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And not Superbowl ad specific, but most of the major networks denied a "controversial" ad by the UCC several years ago... Just read an article that says the UCC ad would be accepted nowadays, but not in 2004.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I recall CBS's rational for not accepting the UCC ad was that it took a position on a controversial political issue.
Now, I believe that they have some right to do that. These days, anyone with enough money can buy and sell whatever "speech" they choose. The idea of "public airwaves" seems to have gone by the wayside.
But can we also put to rest the whole "liberal media" garbage?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But can we also put to rest the whole "liberal media" garbage?
Watch an hour of prime time programming on one of the major networks. Culturally and politically speaking, which side do you think it will lean?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, CBS, as far as this is concerned, seems to be making decisions based on their percieved audience. It's easy for me to assume (perhaps not correctly) that people who watch the super bowl are perhaps a little more conservative-leaning then the average TV viewer. If CBS were to invite more liberal-leaning ads, it might risk backlash from that audience. I don't think they care one way or another on the politics, but about the bottom line.
It's not a matter of free press or the first amendment. It seems like a free market thing. CBS can give ad space to whomever they see fit, and the consumer can decide whether or not to support CBS by watching it or supporting its sponsors, thereby making the ads worthless.
I'm reminded of the Dixie Chics a few years ago, and how they nearly lost their audience when they spoke against George W at a concert. They seem to have forgotten at that moment just who tends to listen to country music, and their audience acted accordingly.
I'll admit to not being an expert on capitalism, though.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I haven't watched the latter two shows, but what about Law and Order is especially conservative, politically or socially?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pro-law enforcement, pro-police and so forth tend to be more conservative. Or at least more Republican. For goodness sake, Fred Thompson was one of their principal actors.
What do you think is especially liberal?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
During the Bush years, the fact that they actually had to gather evidence, follow the laws of due process, and actually convict someone in court could be considered fairly liberal.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except as often as not - though I don't watch the show religiously anymore, no pun intended - the show takes a stance against abuses by the criminal justice system, by police and expert witnesses and the district attorneys and their assistants and so on and so forth. And McCoy, who was the main lawyer on the show for years, was very, very liberal in his politics and frequently made no secret of it. Fred Thompson, by comparison, was hardly a blip on the radar-and the actual protagonists of the show were quite often upset with him.
Aside from McCoy's politics, what is often liberal about the show is its portrayal of sexuality, for example-conservatives generally aren't happy about, for example, adultery being treated as a matter of course on television. Or at least they're usually more unhappy about it than liberals are.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would hardly say that adultery is treated as matter of course when, more often than not, adulterers are also murderers. Unless you also consider that murder is treated as a matter of course as well, because it happens just about every episode.
ETA: In fact, if you are going to cast conservatives and anti-adultery and liberals as pro-adultery, L&O has a very conservative message.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"*If not, how does showing adultery = liberal?"
Because it doesn't suppose that it's best to whitewash stories about human behavior (unless they are morality plays); that exploring the reasons for adultery doesn't constitute endorsement of it.
That's still too simplistic, but it is one way that showing adultery is kind of liberal, without implying that liberals are pro-adultery.
ETA: I don't think that this aligns well with political parties or anything. I think most of us are liberal enough to agree that it's OK for some entertainment shows to portray adultery (while we might have more disagreement about how it is portrayed). But the argument that it would be best not to portray adultery in TV entertainment would, I think, be sort of a fringe conservative view.
posted
But they show adulterers (most of the time) as either murderers or victims of murderers. That isn't exploring reasons for adultery; that is sending a plain message that adultery and adulterers are evil.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess it's going to be impossible to generalize. You're right, some of those portrayals have a lot in common with the sort of exploitation film where every sinner gets murdered.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: But they show adulterers (most of the time) as either murderers or victims of murderers. That isn't exploring reasons for adultery; that is sending a plain message that adultery and adulterers are evil.
McNulty from The Wire doesn't fit this model and thats just off the top of my head. I don't think its as much about showing adultery being liberal or consevative as its about a few far right conservatives getting pissed off whenever that type of stuff gets on TV.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is The Wire on prime time on one of the networks?
I am sure there are plenty of exceptions, but I don't buy that the preponderance of prime time, network shows are liberal. Especially not politically liberal. So if I "watch an hour of prime time programming on one of the major networks" I think that, "culturally and politically speaking" it is more likely to lean conservative as liberal.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fail to see how the Tebow commercial is controversial. His story should be inspirational. He was deemed to be a failure prior to birth. Not only did he overcome the odds during his life, he overcame them prior to birth.
My wife was adopted and when her parents adopted her, they were told she would be mentally retarded. The mother was told she would be and the adoptive parents were told they were adopting a handicapped child. She's far from disadvantaged...completely normal. I transferred my post 911 GI Bill to her and she's getting her Masters degree in Literature.
Neither my wife nor Tebow should've been aborted. Since when has a pro-life message been considered controversial? Every Down's syndrome kid I ever met was very happy and loved by their parent. We should admire the parent who is willing to give birth to a handicapped child. If my wife or Tebow were born retarded, they would still prefer to be alive. Killing them prior to birth only frees the parent from the burden of having a stupid child.....even the stupid child wants to live.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to be blunt. Life wants to live....even life that is less intelligent than the norm. People may delude themselves as a justification for termination but that disadvantaged child would rather live. Ever watch, "Little People, Big World" ? How many parents have aborted their midget embrio? They might tell themselves it's better not to live than to be retarded or deformed but no one asks the retarded or deformed if they would prefer to be dead.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, for starters, that ad could convince women not to take the advice of their doctors when their health is at risk. Not everyone is going to have a happy ending.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |