home

CBS' Double Standards On Super Bowl Ads

Media Matters:

Back in 2004, the United Church of Christ (UCC) attempted to run the following advertisement during CBS' broadcast of the Super Bowl:

The attempt was thwarted however when CBS rejected the ad – apparently because of the network's policy of "prohibiting advocacy ads, even ones that carry an 'implicit' endorsement for a side in a public debate." Now, six years later, CBS is set to air an ad by the anti-choice, anti-gay, far right-wing Focus on the Family during this month’s Super Bowl broadcast.

This is a blatant double standard. CBS should run both ads. Update - CNS said today, under its new guidelines, it would air the UCC ad.

Speaking for me only

< Would A Ban On Foreign "Speech" Pass Constitutional Muster? | Lincoln, Bayh Reject Reconciliation For Health Bill >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Tax? (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 01:47:43 PM EST
    What is the tax status of Focus on the Family? Ads on the super bowl aren't cheap. Since the country is so broke, we should reexamine the tax status on a lot of these organizations and churches. They don't seem to be suffering from any recession. If groups like this or the Mormon Church can dump millions into the political arena, then I see no reason to grant them any tax free status. An ad on the super bowl isn't an act of charity.

    If I were an Obama FCC commissioner (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 12:15:47 PM EST
    with no principles, I'd be thinking about a way to fine CBS for showing this "indecent" ad.

    Sadly, if you were an Obama FCC (none / 0) (#2)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 12:20:56 PM EST
    commissioner, you could easily be a Republican who would love this ad.

    I'll bet Rick Warren is happy about CBS' decision to run the ad.

    Parent

    The ad must be okay (none / 0) (#3)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 12:29:05 PM EST
    because CBS is a liberal network....

    Parent
    It is amazing how much that (none / 0) (#5)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 12:33:15 PM EST
    network has changed and how few people have really figured that out.  

    Parent
    In the interests of balance (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 12:37:15 PM EST
    maybe the should re-air that Bill Hicks routine that Letterman cut from his show, which was apparently originally pulled because it clashed with a "pro-life" ad: ( "Why dont these pro-life people start blockading cemeteries and prove to us how pro-life they REALLY are?!!" )

    Parent
    Bill Hicks (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 12:47:53 PM EST
    I think that they should go ahead and (none / 0) (#4)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 12:31:04 PM EST
    run the ad.  People need to know how far to the right CBS has shifted.

    With any luck, the ad will be heavy-handed and seen, as it should be, as a wholly inappropriate conversation to raise during a national family entertainment event.  I wouldn't want my three-year old to be asking me what an abortion is during the Super Bowl - if I had one.  I wouldn't want my three-year old to learn about that stuff at that age or in that context.

    It is ironic really that these are the very same people who complain about Hollywood poisoning their children's minds.

    Maybe the ad will be so bad TV (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 12:34:32 PM EST
    viewers will think Mom shouldn't have carried Tim to term.

    Not nice (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 12:55:13 PM EST
    But I do think this is a bad business decision for this venue.  I realize they have a huge audience, but a large majority of that audience want to watch commericials about beer, Doritos, and cars, and not moral messages about abortion.

    Parent
    I'll be watching for the (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 01:15:51 PM EST
    Bud Dalmatian commercial :)

    Parent
    Reminds me... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 01:36:39 PM EST
    whatever happened to the Bud Bowl?

    Parent
    I'm not sure . . . (none / 0) (#16)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 01:40:11 PM EST
    but I bet the puppy bowl is on again {grin}

    Parent
    If you're seriously angry, (none / 0) (#10)
    by itscookin on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 01:01:07 PM EST
    boycott the Superbowl. Otherwise, you could send CBS a sternly worded letter.

    Parent
    I just think (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 01:09:12 PM EST
    They will hear about it.  Superbowl fans don't want to be lectured to when they are at a party having a good time watching a football game and eating too much food.

    Dumb decision by CBS.

    Parent

    CBS is a business. (none / 0) (#13)
    by itscookin on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 01:33:51 PM EST
    They make their money by selling ads. They get to choose who they sell ad time to. We all have channel selectors on our TVs. We can watch or not. As a woman I get offended by what's on TV daily. When I get offended enough, I turn off the show. If I find enough shows on one channel offensive, I take the channel off my guide. Telling CBS that you don't like an ad they're running on the Superbowl, but don't worry, I'm still going to watch it isn't going to do anything. Sort of like holding a politician's feet to the fire by complaining about what he's doing but continuing to vote for him and sending his campaign money.

    Parent
    CBS is a business but the airwaves belong (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ellie on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 02:05:04 PM EST
    ... to the public. CBS should be affording equal time/space and respect to an opposing view, or not airing the ad on the same grounds it disallowed other "controversial" ones.

    Parent
    I keep hearing this... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 02:13:32 PM EST
    "public airwaves" stuff...but I'll be damned if I ever got a dividend.

    Parent
    Not sure I'm in favor of publicly owned (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:00:21 PM EST
    airwaves anyway. Airwaves exist, just like real estate. Airwaves should be privately owned with some set aside for public use.

    Parent
    Works for me I think... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:25:12 PM EST
    as long as we get our back dividends from the 50's on:)

    Seriously though, in America, "public ownership" is just another word for private without any lip service to fair play and competitive bidding.

    Parent

    Yep, we never get any dividends (none / 0) (#26)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:39:25 PM EST
    from all leases the gvt receives for public lands either.

    While some might say the money the gvt receives from selling airwaves and leasing public lands is money the gvt then does not take from us in taxes, I'm not sure it all works quite that way...

    Parent

    That makes two of us... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:48:49 PM EST
    especially without any accountability for spending...its just take take take.  And even if one spender is held accountable and booted by the earners, the next is all too happy to take it up where the last clown left off.

    Makes sense too in a perverse way...why scrimp when you can have it all and go back for more? Worst case you go work for a lobby.

    Parent

    Until they start having (none / 0) (#32)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 04:14:07 PM EST
    programs on PBS that delve into the transhistorical relevance of Labatts getting you laid and drivin' pickups through burnin' buildins', Im still gonna have to go out on a limb and say that for some reason the content on publicly/privately owned public television is still, 99.9% of time, of a much higher caliber than what the corporate-run-and-operated major networks foist on the public.

    Or, is it just me?

    Parent

    PBS airs some great stuff... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 12:45:19 PM EST
    in between fund-raising drives...but is anyone watching but us and a few other oddballs?

    Parent
    I wish they'd only cut to the pitch (none / 0) (#40)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    in between programs.

    Btw, on a barely related note, did you catch any of those Clapton Crossroads concerts?

    Parent

    You mean... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 01:10:49 PM EST
    the shows he is doing with Jeff Beck?  I didn't think they got around this way yet..unfortunately I'll be out cuz my social calendar is at a bare min. so I can save for a trip southbound to see my special lady...on self-imposed hermitude right now.

    Parent
    I think... (none / 0) (#42)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 02:10:16 PM EST
    ...this might be what is referred to?

    Speaking of Beck--have you seen/heard that bassist he's got playing with him?  She is an amazing talent and so young...

    Tal Wilkenfeld

    Parent

    I haven't... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 02:15:48 PM EST
    till I peep your link tonight with sound...Thanks!

    Parent
    She was unbelievable (none / 0) (#44)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 02:21:44 PM EST
    the first thing I thought was "What? he's got his daughter playing with him now?"

    She looks like she's eighteen.

    Parent

    A who's who of shredders (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 02:30:33 PM EST
    I must admit that I was under the mistaken impression that John Mayer was just another pop star
    pretty boy before I saw that concert.

    Happy to say he disabused me of that error.

    Parent

    Is it just me (none / 0) (#23)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:09:41 PM EST
    or does this go back again to the money equals speech equation? Along, of course, with the monopolization equals freedom equation.

    And to make matters worse, if pressed, the Krugmans of the world would probably tell you that the power structures supported by the above are too big to fail at this point. Especially in this time of national peril.

    So everyone should just shut up. And have some more soma.

    Parent

    What would we do... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:43:33 PM EST
    if not for blessed soma:)

    "Who lives longer? The man who takes heroin for two years and dies, or a man who lives on roast beef, water and potatoes 'till 95? One passes his 24 months in eternity. All the years of the beefeater are lived only in time."

    A. Huxley

    I don't think I could hack it on roast beef & water alone 'till 95 round here.

    Parent

    I dont need to hear that (none / 0) (#33)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 04:18:53 PM EST
    kind of enabling talk just now :)

    I prefer to go with a balanced rotation -- and Im not talking about what the Mets aren't gonna have this year.

    Parent

    Don't bullsh*t me... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 05:47:27 PM EST
    you never struck me as the weak-willed type my brother.

    Parent
    If CBS will run this... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 01:38:11 PM EST
    y'all better hope they never give me any money...it'll be on come Super Bowl time...the FCC wouldn't have enough extensions.

    The media controls the (their) message and (none / 0) (#20)
    by esmense on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 02:45:50 PM EST
    there is no amount of money that can change that fact. No amount of money in the world is enough to allow Progressives to buy the same access to the "public" air waves their conservative counterparts enjoy; not only in paid advertising but also unpaid editorial content.

    That's why neither curbing what corporate interests can contribute to political activities or increasing taxpayer support for political activities will ever, in terms of media access, create real benefit for progressive candidates and issues.

    The only thing that would help is most likely politically and legally impossible -- banning media outlets from charging money for political speech on the public airwaves and requiring they clearly identify themselves as sponsors of any political advertising they do air.

    That would pretty much put an end to political advertising.

    Although it wouldn't end the advantage commercial, that is corporate, advertisers enjoy, and will always enjoy, it would make politics less expensive and free private and public money for more direct and grassroots political activity.

    Plus, progressives could perhaps use money now wasted trying to bribe big media to allow them access to instead create new ways of communicating directly with potential supporters and voters.

    What CBS should do, and what it will do (none / 0) (#21)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:00:18 PM EST
    are, of course, not necessarily the same.

    Commercials are for potty breaks, refreshing drinks, bringing in more beer, letting the dogs out, putting out more food.

    And there's always the DVR, that lets you pause, and return to the show/game after fast-forwarding through the commercials...

    "CBS should run both ads." (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:13:26 PM EST
    Are we assuming CBS wouldn't?

    Has UCC tried to buy time for its ad for this year's SB and been denied?

    well, (none / 0) (#29)
    by bocajeff on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:51:21 PM EST
    we've seen one ad and not the other. So it's rather impossible to judge without seeing an evidence. But that wouldn't be any fun...

    CBS willing to air more Super Bowl advocacy ads (none / 0) (#30)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 03:54:24 PM EST
    NEW YORK - CBS responded to complaints over a conservative group's planned Super Bowl ad featuring football star Tim Tebow by saying that it had eased restrictions on advocacy ads and would consider "responsibly produced" ones for open spots in its Feb. 7 broadcast.

    CBS Corp. said Tuesday it had received numerous e-mails -- both critical and supportive -- since a coalition of women's groups began a protest campaign Monday against the ad, which the critics say will use Tebow and his mother to convey an anti-abortion message.


    Link

    Given the median of F@rting Clydesdales letting .. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ellie on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 09:25:53 PM EST
    ... 'em go in the face of a woman on a date (that odious hansom cab ad) passed the test "responsibly produced", CBS's pretense at social delicacy is ridiculous.

    I will now malfunction my wardrobe in their general direction (and not the bra or pants but my socks.)

    Parent

    Fox is most trustworthy! (none / 0) (#31)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 04:08:40 PM EST
    A new Public Policy Polling survey looks at perceptions of network television news and finds Fox News as the only network that more people say they trust than distrust.

    Here are the trust/don't trust spreads: Fox 49% to 37%, CNN 39% to 41%, NBC 35% to 44%, CBS 32% to 46%, and ABC 31% to 46%.

    If this is true, it's no wonder the country is in the tank! I sometimes wonder what planet I live on. Maybe CBS figures that running this ad will help their lagging trust figures.

    well, (none / 0) (#34)
    by bocajeff on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 04:37:38 PM EST
    what are the independent statistics to show that these numbers are wrong? I mean, we all have our biases, but how many stories do they get wrong (news, not opinion) versus others? What about which stories get covered and how they get covered?

    Your comment reminds me of the infamous Pauline Kael line about Nixon beating McGovern in a historic landslide: 'How could he win when everyone I know voted for McGovern'...

    Parent