Kevin Hollinshead, Staff Writer
Ideology: Progressive | Writing from: Fort Collins, CO
Super Bowl Sunday was once considered a holy day in this country – purely a celebration of football, funny commercials and huge piles of chicken wings. You certainly never let hot-button politics pervade the sanctity of the gridiron.
CBS, however, is now directly involved with an unprecedented politicization of the game.
The network recently decided to air an anti-abortion commercial from the evangelical political organization Focus on the Family during this Sunday’s broadcast. The ad will reportedly feature Florida Gators quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother discussing how her “personal faith” convinced her to carry her son to term while she and her husband were missionaries in the Philippines, despite medical advice to terminate the pregnancy. In accepting the ad, CBS reversed its long-standing policy against running any ad that “touches on and/or takes a position on one side of a current controversial issue” on the network, particularly during sporting events. In 2004, they famously rejected a commercial from the United Church of Christ, citing this policy. The UCC ad’s “controversial” tagline was “Jesus didn’t turn people away. Neither do we,” a sentiment, last I heard, supported by every Gospel of the New Testament.
The reported tagline of the Focus on the Family ad is “Celebrate family, celebrate life,” which is a coded, divisive rallying cry of the rabid anti-choice movement. In the face of criticism from the UCC, The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and a coalition of women’s groups, CBS has been dismissive in its responses. Several statements have tried to explain that this decision somehow reflects a more modern, forward-thinking approach toward advocacy ads from CBS.
Given the state of today’s economy and abortion’s status as the single-most polarizing social issue in American politics, it is naïve of the network to expect anyone to believe that. It clearly comes down to the $2.7 million CBS gets paid to run each 30-second Super Bowl ad. Yet, not even that explains the newest wrinkle in this controversy.
On Friday, CBS rejected a silly commercial from the gay dating site ManCrunch.com, which features two men who suddenly start making out while celebrating a touchdown on TV. The stupid GoDaddy.com commercials with Danica Patrick are more inappropriate in terms of sexual content, yet they’ll surely continue their run during Super Bowls. ManCrunch.com will no doubt benefit from this attention, but this contradiction of business ethics is troubling nonetheless. CBS seems willing to alienate and offend people for sake of their bottom line, but only certain groups. They are apparently OK with irritating the pro-choice community, but they are unwilling to let the homophobic Religious Right see two men kiss.
Focus on the Family may even be leading CBS into even hotter water. Prominent attorney Gloria Allred has questioned Mrs. Tebow’s claim that Filipino doctors advised her to terminate her pregnancy. Abortion has been illegal in the Philippines since 1930 and is punishable by six-year prison sentences for both the doctor and the mother. Given this, it doesn’t make sense that doctors would have actually advised an abortion, so Allred has announced that she will file a complaint with the FTC and the FCC if the ad neglects those facts.
CBS’ actions imply that they either have a financial stake in specifically courting the Religious Right or that the network is simply afraid of their wrath. If this were purely about generating revenue and hype, the ManCrunch.com ad would have been accepted along with Focus on the Family’s. Typical football fans made uncomfortable by two men kissing likely outnumber those annoyed by anti-choice zealots or Tebow Mania, so CBS is picking commercials accordingly. Yet, even more people will decry any intertwining of politics and football. It just makes you wonder why CBS even put itself in this mess in the first place.
CBS is doing what any revenue maximizing corporation would do by catering to its viewers. You touch on this in your last paragraph when you say that a typical football fan would be made more uncomfortable by two guys kissing than a well respected football star expressing a personal belief (anti-choice zealot!). CBS isn’t part of a vast right-wing conspiracy, they just know who their viewers are and do not want them to risk having them change the channel if they see something that offends them.
I’m pro-life and pro-gay rights so I hope I can give this an evenhanded look. Here’s how I see it…
There seems to be, in the US media, a constant check for “decency.” That is, making that what’s aired doesn’t offend the viewership. For the third or one-half of American families who probably wouldn’t care too much about men kissing on their TV screen, airing the ad does nothing. For the rest (likely a majority) who is peeved by it (if for no other reason than their kids asking “Mom….”) it makes sense (from a business perspective) to choose the option that offends no one. It just so happens most of the time that the things that do the ‘offending’ are things that liberals are okay with and conservatives are not.
–My only question: who the hell is actually offended by a mother getting on TV and saying that mothers should consider having a child? It’s not like she’s standing up there saying abortion is murder or women who’ve had abortions are evil.
The real test will be how CBS responds when PETA, a well-funded but controversial advocacy group, tries – AGAIN – to purchase an ad on CBS. (PETA, if your listening, hint, hint). Or the Secular Coalition (again, hint hint).
It’s not like I watch much TV to begin with, so saying I’ll boycott CBS is almost meaningless, but if they fail to openly welcome non-christian advertisers, I will certainly make my displeasure known to their other advertisers.
I can’t believe anyone cares about this. Further, I’d challenge your “contradiction of business ethics” comment with that CBS’ ethical duty is to its shareholders, not to its customers or even the viewers of its shows for that matter. CBS is not going to air an ad that will cause it to lose money. Two men kissing probably will. A pro-life message, which the majority of Americans hold, probably won’t. The only people who care are the rabid women’s groups that have no legitimate reason to exist, because no matter how polarizing the abortion issue is, it has been settled by the courts and will not change.
The “choice” people have to keep the public talking about abortion because if they don’t, people will soon realize that the Court settled the issue in 1973, revisited in 1990, and is close to a dead issue as anything else in the law. Nobody would care about it if these women’s groups didn’t make a big deal.
Kevin -
If the ad showed an abortion procedure, I could agree with your outrage and entertain your parallel to the ManCrunch ad. However, the ad – presumably – only discusses the Tebow family and not the horrifics of the abortion procedure. (If it makes you feel any better, Kevin, this moving ad by Catholic Vote about Obama was rejected by NBC and CNN.)
I am pro-gay rights and I agree with their decision to reject the ManCrunch ad. No one should be portrayed making out during the Super Bowl – it’s watched by a lot of kids. Not even the erectile dysfunction ads (which are an entirely different discussion) show people making out, and neither do the straight dating services. Furthermore, from a pro-gay PR standpoint, that ad would be a mistake anyway: let’s face it – there are still people who think gays are sexually promiscuous (just ask the Red Cross). Showing them making out in an ad, during the Super Bowl no less, would only re-enforce that stereotype.
I guess it’s worth watching to see if any of the ads show people making out which, apparently, is more offensive than, say cheerleaders shaking their “pompoms” to support the football players as the slam into each in an orgy of homoerotic abandon…
Here’s the ManCrunch ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MQWFiIrBLA
There’s a difference between implying something and actually doing it. This is not even to mention the slogan “where men come out and play” – which would not be appropriate if it were “where men and women come out to play.” That ad is more suited for late-night television. Looks like ManCrunch just wanted some free publicity.
It’s actually legal to have an abortion “for medical reasons” in the Philippines. Gloria screwed up. (Though I’m not exactly surprised.)
I don’t see the issue here. Yes this is bringing slight politics into the Superbowl which may be the only reason to steer clear, but it is being brought in a non offensive way. A woman considering that her choice to give life to her son is probably more than just “my son is Rich!” happiness. But as others have mentioned if they were showing the abortion procedures or bashing everyone who chose abortion it would be very different. If the mancrunch.com commercial had two men talking about how their connection made through the website, instead of making out in front of an entire superbowl audience I am sure there would be a different response.
Even for those who are pro choice are not PRO abortion. No one gets angry that someone chooses to keep their baby (except for maybe the few extremely conservative parents who need to hide the shame of their pregnant teens). Why would it be offensive for a woman to share her story of choosing Life? If it happens to influence another woman to do the same, what is the harm?
Jesse, as for your questions “what about a woman who just isn’t ready? What about a situation where two people just don’t want to have children together?”
Easy answer which I think many will agree with me, Don’t have sex. No reason to take out the mistake of a mentally capable and mature adult on an innocent child. The reasons of being too young, unmarried, raped, and incest are even beyond my realm of understanding but are at least defendable. If you sleep with someone you don;t want to have a child with, your bad.. not theirs.
Overall my thought is again no one is pro abortion, so what is the problem with saying I decided to have my baby? Wouldn’t a pro choice supporter also support this mother for making this choice on her own?
Can not wait to see it.
Well, I’m not part of a rabid women’s group, and CBS’s decision angers me. Choice certainly still is an issue affecting women; just because abortion is legal up to viability does not change the face that abortion is horribly stigmatized. We live in a society where women justifiably can terminate a pregnancy, but “choice” always is dependent on negative factors. Even among pro-choice enthusiasts, abortion seems acceptable when a woman is too young, out of wedlock, or a victim of rape or incest. We rarely hear people advocating for the tolerance of abortion without moonlighting it under some other issue victimizing women. What about a woman who just isn’t ready? What about a situation where two people just don’t want to have children together? Just as gay rights legislation ultimately pushes for the eradication of sexual stigma, choice activists have many social barriers yet to overcome despite Roe v Wade.
Conor, while I think it is fine that Ms. Tebow can get on the television screen and talk about her decision to bare a child, the message is ultimately anti-Levitt (the abortion-cuts-crime theory). This family, one of privilege and resource, is able to stand in front of the nation and say “if I hadn’t had my baby, TIM TEBOW THE GREAT GATOR (Can you tell how much I hate Florida?) wouldn’t exist.” What about the millions of women who cannot afford to raise Tim Tebow? What about the millions of women who cannot afford, fiscally, emotionally, physically, to go through a pregnancy and give the next Tim Tebow up for adoption? I think choice is important, despite my waving the anti-abortion-stigma flag, also so women can choose to carry their pregnancies to term. But I think it’s important that we look at what this commercial is really saying and why it’s affecting.
Michele–I get your point about family values and the superbowl and the children, but Zantrex 3 commercials are filled with innuendo even though no one is kissing. A man and a woman are half naked with their hands all over each other in still frames that clearly allude to foreplay. I think that is far racier than two men making out while watching foot ball.
Ultimately, CBS’s decision does not surprise me because, well, nuclear family values rule America. But I do think that there is a lot more going on than corporate accounts and concern for the children in the airing of these ads. Right on, Hollinshead!
I measure how low we have sunk as a society, by how much clamor this issue creates.
What in the world is so difficult, or costly, in terms of the pregnant girl’s life track, about nine months of gestating a baby, and then offering it up for adoption?
Why do we need for her to kill the fetus? Why do we need the justification of that killing? And why do we need to silence people who point out, with clarity, the moral sinkhole into which we’ve slipped(the Tebows, and CBS)?
Abortion backers: think about what you mean by what you say! Yours is a ghoulish world.
O&D,
Let us know how you feel about abortion when your 15 year old daughter gets knocked up because you insisted on “abstinence only” sex “education”.
Yes, when she has to drop out of school or not go to college or fails her classes because she has to carry her fetus to term, I’m sure you’ll still be of the same position that pregnancy is just a minor inconvenience, like Athlete’s Foot.
Even as someone who considers himself fairly pro-life, I find this sort of reasoning to be totally ridiculous.
Noah – be careful in your characterizations. Many pro-lifers, myself included, are in favor of comprehensive education that includes abstinence.
On a related note, I think the larger problem here is precisely that women are often basically told to abort or not go to college/have a successful career (I remember a brief yet heart-wrenching scene in the movie Last Chance Harvey where a 50-something woman discusses how she regrets having an abortion in college; she had it because “it was what smart girls did.”) We need to decrease the demand for abortion, and make motherhood a more viable option (“choice”).
Michele,
My argument wasn’t that this is what I think all pro-Lifers believe — rather, I was pointing out what I believe to be inconsistencies in O&D’s general approach to the issue.
By treating pregnancy as something that is merely some sort of inconvenience, as opposed to the expensive, emotionally and physically exhausting, and sometimes even life-threatening (and for many teenage girls, socially alienating) experience that it is, we are ignoring an important aspect of why so many women seek abortions today.
Furthermore, by treating pregnancy as an inconvenience, we minimize the tough decision of many women do choose to get an abortion. By portraying it as something insignificant you promote the viewpoint that “taking care” of a pregnancy is on the same emotional level as getting rid of your hiccups.
“Yours is a ghoulish world…”
I’m ok with that. It’s less ghoulish than presuming you can dictate what’s difficult or costly for someone else.
When science gets us to the point men can carry children to term, I’m sure many of you will quickly offer yoursleves up to be filler for the moral sinkhole, dedicating your lives to gestating babies for adoption.
Aho!
Please don’t start with that argument. I’ve had way to much of the “you don’t understand because you aren’t black/poor/gay/female/married/ect.” on this site. If you look at the numbers, just as many if not more women are pro-life compared as to men.
Jesse, two points:
First, from your response to what I said previously: I don’t think anything of that sort should be on television during regular hours, and especially not during the Super Bowl.
Second: “What about a woman who just isn’t ready? What about a situation where two people just don’t want to have children together?” Then they shouldn’t be participating in activities that lead to pregnancy. Simple as that.
As a general response to your comments: Having a family and raising children is also a “choice.” Abortion, as you seem to believe, is not the only choice. Women have more options than an often-traumatizing procedure that should considered an absolute last resort. Focus on the Family is just pointing out other options, and that some women choose to carry their babies to term. What’s so offensive about motherhood?
Nothing is offensive about motherhood. I am sure it is one of the greatest pleasures life offers when you’re ready for it. Personally, I cannot wait to be a mother in, say, 10-15 years. To piggyback Kevin, my problem with the ad and, therefore, CBS’s stance on the issue, is anti-choice promotion. It is not an ad “pointing out other options;” it is an ad specifically against abortion.
Thanks for the feedback everyone.
My piece is basically predicated on this idea: If Planned Parenthood had submitted a pro-choice (yes, that includes keeping the baby or giving him/her up for adoption, pro-choice doesn’t mean pro-abortion. At all)ad, would it have been accepted by CBS? The likely answer is no. I could be wrong, but if CBS is going to rescind its policy on “advocacy” ads, then they have to balance right-leaning ones with left-leaning ones if they don’t want to endorse a particular ideology.
My problem with Focus on the Family isn’t that they’re promoting a pro-life philosophy, it’s that they advocate the banning of abortion. That’s why I refer to them as “anti-choice.”
CBS was perfectly within its discretion to allow the Focus on the Family ad and to reject the gay dating service ad. I think that the first of the two will be weird to watch and change the mood, but I’m frankly glad about the second being rejected.
The FotF ad makes the argument that sometimes, not getting an abortion leads to an NFL player. That is a fact which cannot be disputed. This situation is proof. To my knowledge, the ad does not advocate the banning of abortion directly, and therefore falls short of being a blatantly political statement. And even if it did, CBS is a business and short of slander or making a call to commit a crime should be allowed to do what it pleases. Customers who disagree are certainly entitled to respond, but honestly, the vast majority of the roughly 100,000,000 U.S. viewers of the Super Bowl are going to tune in even if there is an ad supporting eating babies.
As to the ManCrunch ad, I’m really glad they rejected it. I don’t like it for the obvious reason that it is an offensive and incorrect stereotype. But beyond that, the commercial itself is terrible from a production perspective. I’m a Kinsey 6 (100% into men, for you newcomers to Gayland), and this ad does nothing positive for me. It isn’t hot, it isn’t funny, it isn’t smart, it’s just awkward. Seriously, at the end of the ad, I had the feeling I would find a more wholesome man on CraigsList.
Also, let’s not forget, this is not CBS contributing millions of dollars to FotF, it’s them taking $2,000,000 of Dobson’s gang’s money, which they can put toward whatever they so please.
Colin: We’re in complete agreement. You stated it very well. You may be a “Kinsey 6″(I’m gonna Google that thing and learn about the Kinsey scale) but in my book, you’re a “Politicizer 10!”
Don’t touch me there!
I think the politico-philosophical question becomes “Is pro-choice antiabortion, and vice versa?”
Radio talk shows know that that question, and gun rights, grind the call board to a halt(it’s filled, not empty). It looks like it lights up this board, too.
Sometimes I wonder how successful the abortion industry would be if it were the men calling for the disposal of all those babies, instead of the feminists! Aha! Maybe that’s the way to start stopping it!