Controversial Super Bowl Ad

[ruffages]

From Reuters: Super Bowl ad Stokes US Abortion Controversy


Super Bowl ad stokes U.S. abortion controversy
Tue, Jan 26 2010

* Women's groups urge CBS to pull Super Bowl ad

* Controversy lobs abortion issue into NFL's main event

By Ed Stoddard and Ben Klayman

DALLAS/CHICAGO, Jan 26 (Reuters) - U.S. women's groups are urging television broadcaster CBS not to air an ad during next month's Super Bowl football championship final because they say it has a strident anti-abortion rights message.

The plans to air the ad, sponsored by a conservative Christian group called Focus on the Family, could see the polarizing issue of abortion rights dropped squarely in the midst of National Football League's premier event.

It would be the first time that Focus on the Family, a politically influential evangelical group founded by James Dobson, has bought air time during the Super Bowl -- the ultimate prize of the advertising world with 30-second spots going for up to $3.2 million.

The Women's Media Center and over 30 other liberal and women's advocacy groups sent a letter to CBS, the TV network to air the Super Bowl on Feb. 7, saying: "... we urge you to immediately cancel this ad and refuse any other advertisement promoting Focus on the Family's agenda."

"We are calling on CBS to stick to their policy of not airing controversial advocacy ads ... and this is clearly a controversial ad," Jehmu Greene, the president of the Women's Media Center, told Reuters.

But CBS said it no longer had a blanket filter on advocacy submissions for ad slots. "We have for some time moderated our approach to advocacy submissions after it became apparent that our stance did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms on the issue," said CBS spokesman Dana McClintock.

An NFL spokesman said: "CBS standards and practices department approved the content of the ad as appropriate for the audience. We take no issue with CBS' decision."

Focus on the Family has said that 30-second spot will feature college football star Tim Tebow and his mother Pam.

"The Tebows said they agreed to appear in the commercial because the issue of life is one they feel very strongly about," it said in a statement on its website.

While the statement does not explicitly mention abortion, "issue of life" is often akin to opposition to abortion rights in conservative Christian circles.

Media reports have said the ad is expected to focus on Pam Tebow's decision to carry Tim to term despite a recommendation from doctors that she have an abortion.

But Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger would not reveal the contents, saying: "Tim and Pam are going to share one of their inspirational stories. We will not confirm which one it is because we want the impact of the ad to be felt on Super Bowl Sunday."

Focus on the Family also said the ad had been paid for by "very generous and committed friends" and that no money was used from the ministry's general fund.

"It (the ad) uses one family's story to dictate morality to the American public, and encourages young women to disregard medical advice, putting their lives at risk," said the letter sent to CBS by the Women's Media Center.

Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in America and a spate of recent opinion polls have suggested growing opposition to women's right to terminate pregnancy. (Editing by Mary Milliken and Chris Wilson)

----------------------------------------------------

Carolyn

[Esmeralda]

I think you all probably know where I stand on this issue!

[Esther]

I think it is a sad state of affairs that a commercial that advocates life and love can be deemed "controversial." Personally I find it more offensive and controversial that a group called Woman's Media Center thinks it can speak on behalf of women in general when clearly it has its own very agenda, and certainly does not speak on the behalf of *this* woman.

[ruffages]

I think it is a sad state of affairs that a commercial that advocates life and love can be deemed "controversial." Personally I find it more offensive and controversial that a group called Woman's Media Center thinks it can speak on behalf of women in general when clearly it has its own very agenda, and certainly does not speak on the behalf of *this* woman.

Amen Esther! My head was about to explode with this story. You put my feelings about this succinctly. Thanks.

Carolyn

[cherir]

Amen Esther!

[holliejjj]

I think the fact he is a football player and the ad is during the Super Bowl makes it relevant and uplifting...but it's hard to say without seeing the commercial. Joy Behar was talking about on the view today that the commercial is like a "look I chose life and he ended up being a wonderful football player" and she said the reverse could be said about Jeffrey Dahmer or whoever the arguement could be made, only if they had been aborted. I'm probably phrasing it wrong since I was only half listening.

If I read correctly they were afraid if a woman's life was in danger that this ad was saying "have the baby anyway". It should really be a choice for the woman if her life is in danger. Although I don't think this ad is going to create negative consequences lol. And in my experience doctors can be wrong.

Honestly I just wonder if an ad is really going to do anything. Super Bowl ads are not cheap and that money could have been used in maybe more effective ways?

Really I'm just throwing things out there.. either way people need to calm down. Promoting life should not be controversial!

[ruffages]

I think the fact he is a football player and the ad is during the Super Bowl makes it relevant and uplifting...but it's hard to say without seeing the commercial. Joy Behar was talking about on the view today that the commercial is like a "look I chose life and he ended up being a wonderful football player" and she said the reverse could be said about Jeffrey Dahmer or whoever the arguement could be made, only if they had been aborted. I'm probably phrasing it wrong since I was only half listening.

Sorry, Hollie, but I find that argument nonsensical. Because it is easily flipped around. So, "you" didn't abort a Jeffrey Dahlmer, but "you" did abort the person destined to cure cancer/alzheimer's/AIDS. Or the next Beethoven/Bach/Van Gogh/Picasso.

Honestly I just wonder if an ad is really going to do anything. Super Bowl ads are not cheap and that money could have been used in maybe more effective ways?

Really? Wow. I guess I look at that completely different. If Tebow's story changes one woman's mind about having her baby and raising that child in the same loving and faithful family, then it was effective. As opposed to the same amount of money used to sell more beer/doritos/etc. I guess it's all perspective.

Carolyn

[sarah]

ITA with Esther! Well said!

[Alison]

My understanding, and I haven't seen the commercial, is that the controversy is because his mother was advised to have an abortion for medical reasons. I don't know what those reasons were, I don't know if they thought there was a problem with the baby or it was her medical issue. Some feel (not saying this is how I feel since I haven't seen it) that the message is, "ignore medical advice and have the baby anyway, even if it puts your life in danger." I am pro-choice, but I don't have a problem with an anti abortion commercial being played on tv, free speech and all...

[Tina]

I don't have a problem with an anti abortion commercial being played on tv, free speech and all...

ITA. Pro-choice or anti-abortion - free speech. What I do find offensive are those stupid Viagra commercials

[holliejjj]

Carolyn please don't jump on me (I'm waaaay closer to pro-life, so I agree with many points already stated) I said JOY BEHAR said that. Not me!!! That is not my arguement at all. She was saying that pro-life side uses an arguement that the person aborted *could* be a wonderful person who does cure cancer or whatever but on the flip side they could also be a serial killer or terrorist. Either way, it's not exactly the best arguement for/against abortion. I think the arguements used on both sides most of the time are silly and more about making the other side look bad instead of working together to actually DO something.

Alison, you are exactly right. That's what I was reading was the controversy... promoting ignoring doctor's advice. For every happy story where the doctors were wrong (which absolutely happens) there are probably stories where doctors were right and the woman died, therefore so did the baby

And yes I absolutely think millions of dollars could be spent helping thousands of pregnant ladies v/s an expensive ad during the super bowl that may not do anything. Ads are for selling stuff (doritoes, pizza and *sigh* beer with their misogynist commercials) you can't really "sell" not having an abortion. Changing the mind of maybe one person? How about helping thousands choose life by giving to pregnancy crisis centers?

[ruffages]

My understanding, and I haven't seen the commercial, is that the controversy is because his mother was advised to have an abortion for medical reasons. I don't know what those reasons were, I don't know if they thought there was a problem with the baby or it was her medical issue. Some feel (not saying this is how I feel since I haven't seen it) that the message is, "ignore medical advice and have the baby anyway, even if it puts your life in danger." I am pro-choice, but I don't have a problem with an anti abortion commercial being played on tv, free speech and all...

She had ameobic dysentary and was treated while she was pregnant (on mission in the Philippines). The Drs felt that she had damaged the baby and urged her to abort.

NO one has seen the ad (except for CBS to view for content). So, perhaps all these womens groups have their panties in a twist over nothing.

And ultimately, the way *I* am reading it, this controversy is that choice is all well and good, as long as you choose what is "recommended" (or urged) for you to choose. If not, well, then "we" don't want to hear about your choice, nor do "we" want you talking about your choice, especially if it might encourage others to make a choice contrary to our agenda. This is where the pro-choice movement loses its credibility as being pro-choice and starts to be come pro-abortion.

Carolyn

[Alison]

FTR, I do support a woman's right to not do everything her doctor says she should do, abort, have a c-section, induce, whatever...

[Jen O]

I try to be a purist on free speech issues (note I said try, maybe I don't always succeed).

I say: Let them anyone run any ad they want -- telling people abortion is wrong, saying they shouldn't choose to have an abortion, telling their own story about why they didn't chose abortion -- whatever. Run 'em all as long as they meet obscenity and decency standards.

And, I also say: Let any group say, This ad ticks me off and I really am mad at you and I think you stink and I'm not going to watch you anymore because you ran this ad. Free speech for all.

I think part of the controversy is that CBS has changed its policies on ads that involve political issues. In 2004, they refused to run an ad by the United Church of Christ that advocated tolerance for gay couples. (see below)

"NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The CBS and NBC networks have refused to run an ad by a liberal church promoting the acceptance of people regardless of sexual orientation because the networks believe the ad is advocacy advertising.

The 30-second spot, run by the United Church of Christ, features two muscle-bound bouncers standing outside a church, selecting people who could attend service and those who could not. Among those kept out are two males who appear to be a couple. Written text then appears saying, in part, "Jesus didn't turn people away, neither do we."

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples...and the fact that the executive branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast," the church quoted CBS as saying. "

I think some people were wondering, why allow this and not that. I believe CBS has said it has changed its rules for advocacy ads, so the above would probably be acceptable to them now.

[SherrieM.]

Disclaimer: My husband works for a local CBS station.

What Jen said is exactly it. CBS National changed its rules on these types of ads. Why they did, no idea. But that is why this ad is running and the one from a few years ago did not.

[Christina]

And ultimately, the way *I* am reading it, this controversy is that choice is all well and good, as long as you choose what is "recommended" (or urged) for you to choose. If not, well, then "we" don't want to hear about your choice, nor do "we" want you talking about your choice, especially if it might encourage others to make a choice contrary to our agenda. This is where the pro-choice movement loses its credibility as being pro-choice and starts to be come pro-abortion.

Same can be said for the pro-life movement.

[ruffages]

And ultimately, the way *I* am reading it, this controversy is that choice is all well and good, as long as you choose what is "recommended" (or urged) for you to choose. If not, well, then "we" don't want to hear about your choice, nor do "we" want you talking about your choice, especially if it might encourage others to make a choice contrary to our agenda. This is where the pro-choice movement loses its credibility as being pro-choice and starts to be come pro-abortion.

Same can be said for the pro-life movement.

Oh? Does the pro-life movement bill themselves as pro-choice?

[Esther]

that choice is all well and good, as long as you choose what is "recommended" (or urged) for you to choose. If not, well, then "we" don't want to hear about your choice, nor do "we" want you talking about your choice, especially if it might encourage others to make a choice contrary to our agenda. This is where the pro-choice movement loses its credibility as being pro-choice and starts to be come pro-abortion.

Carolyn I couldn't agree with you more on this!

and also here:

Same can be said for the pro-life movement.



Oh? Does the pro-life movement bill themselves as pro-choice?

[sarah]

And ultimately, the way *I* am reading it, this controversy is that choice is all well and good, as long as you choose what is "recommended" (or urged) for you to choose. If not, well, then "we" don't want to hear about your choice, nor do "we" want you talking about your choice, especially if it might encourage others to make a choice contrary to our agenda. This is where the pro-choice movement loses its credibility as being pro-choice and starts to be come pro-abortion.

Same can be said for the pro-life movement.

Oh? Does the pro-life movement bill themselves as pro-choice?

Very true!

[holliejjj]

NO one has seen the ad (except for CBS to view for content). So, perhaps all these womens groups have their panties in a twist over nothing.

Carolyn

I absolutely agree. No one knows exactly what the ad says so why be up in arms already? I would never advocate someone to not listen to their doctor but like I said they are wrong. I should post Jasmine's birth story sometime so everyone can see on how hell bent the doctors were in letting me know the baby would not make it *sigh*

I did hear on the Today show Kathie Lee Gifford talking about how some people feel there is a double standard going on at CBS as they are allowing this ad but are rejecting an ad for a male (gay) dating service website.