CBS Urged to Pull Tebow Anti-Abortion Superbowl Ad

So would it be okay if there was an ad supporting abortion? Or would the people who think it is okay for this Tebow ad to air freak out?

 

I wish CBS airs the ad. Not because I agree with the content of it, but because everytime something controversial comes up, it gets banned.

If we become a culture of banning anything anyone finds offensive, we're going to lose diversity, not enrich it.

I don't want to live in a place where others have to decide what I can or can not see or hear. In a capitalistic country, people should be able to buy advertising space and broadcast their thoughts so long as it doesn't violate the FCC laws.

I hope the ad airs. I hope all ads air and none are ever banned. This country needs an enema.

 

So "progress" is changing your mind in a manner YOU agree with within the timeframe that YOU deem to be acceptable. Face it: you can paint the picture any way you want, but SM was being hypocritical (he basically admitted as much) and he got busted. There was no "progress". So you can drop your catchy little euphemism for "hypocrisy", since it doesn't apply in this case.

You're right: CBS has the right to be hypocritical. But that doesn't mean people aren't going to raise their voices in opposition to it. And, no, they don't have to resort to a lottery. They can just say "no" to politically divisive advertisements that will piss off a great deal of the country. After all, as you said, there are "more applicants for air time than there are time slots", so you could just book another ad for something less controversial like, say, Burger King (although that plastic King head is kinda creepy).

Well, let's look at SM's statements and see:

2010

2004

Seems to me that his statement in 2010 directly violates the beliefs he voiced in 2004. So, yes, hypocritical.

And as for CBS, they refused ads based on controversy, then allowed an ad about THE most controversial issue in the country. Their actions speak for themselves. If you don't see the hypocrisy, it's because you CHOOSE not to see it.

 

Good for the lifers being able to snag a celeb. I guess the women's group needs to pony up too; get some female athletes to speak out in favor of abortion rights, I guess. Or just bombard every non-Super Bowl station with their own over-priced ads, or just wait till Oscar/Emmy/Desperate Housewives season finale time. No fouls, every entity here seems to be functioning correctly. Sounds like an interesting argument possibly in favor of equal time laws, but still not interested.

 

If I had 3 million dollars to blow, I'd buy a 30 second Super Bowl ad and just have a commercial of me sitting on my couch, eating popcorn.


And then it would end.

 

Why exactly is an ad that encourages women to carry their fetus to term so "offensive?"

I could understand if it were an ad damning people to hell for having abortions, etc...but a simple ad asking women to not have an abortion should not be considered "offensive."

Geez...if that is offensive, we are screwed as a society. Perhaps people should just mime from now on as words are so bloody offensive.

 

That is the true hypocrisy of human beings, both left and right.

 

That's ironic as the ad is about avoiding murder.

 

I'd be eating spaghetti, but not watching anything. But it would be the whole procedure: boiling water, cooking, waiting, then prepping and eating it. Or maybe I'd have a cold and just be snorting and spitting (not a big nose-blower).

 

So you want to live in a country where a private business (CBS) doesn't get to make the decisions based on what is in its best interests? They should have to show any ad if anyone pays the money?

These other ads aren't "banned" because they are offensive. They are rejected because half their audience doesn't want to see them and it hurts the network's bottom line.

 

Progress is not a euphemism for hypocrisy. It was meant to designate change with an unknown value judgment attached.

It has nothing to do with MY timeframe. The Kerry flip-flopping accusation was a PUBLIC PERCEPTION (if you look you can find headlines from old newspapers!) fueled by his apparently changing his mind on issues dependent upon his audience on that particular day. So you see it has nothing at all to do with me; it's way bigger than that... and you know that.

Only SM can know what his intentions were back in 2004. If you go back to my original post, my criticism was that the charges of hypocrisy were flying BEFORE he had a chance to respond.

I've asked and it has not been answered. How is CBS being hypocritical but allowing the pro-Life ad now while disallowing the MoveOn ad back in 2004? I should think that CBS has a right to plot their own course regarding their advertising policy.

It's hard to say that anything is NOT political, but a pro-Life ad is a value piece not a political hot potato since there is no upcoming referendum on the issue.

It's a challenge to compare the two statements because the theys in the two statements are different parties to the discussion.

The they of the 2004 is referring to CBS Network. They 2010 they is referring to parties wishing to advertise.

Combining the two statements, you get this: CBS can run whatever ads they wish to run and if they (FOTF or NOW) pay their money their ad should run.

Since ads are not limitless, that is an impossibility and CBS more than likely has to choose which ads to run.

Again, where is the hypocrisy? It seems to be that you want to charge those making choices differently than you wish them to with hypocrisy whereas hypocrisy has more to do with a consistency of behavior and a proclamation made about your self.

Wasn't the 2004 Super Bowl during the campaign season for the 2004 presidential election? That alone would seem to set that decision apart from anything going on in 2010. MoveOn's schtick was to attack the Administration. Oh yeah and didn't a war start in 2003 which was still raging in January of 2004?

As they say: in Life, timing is everything.

If you see hypocrisy, it's because you choose to see it. :grin:

 

Probably a little off-topic but this is probably the last time Tebow makes an appearance at the Super Bowl.. Whoops!!

 

I think that is what I meant.

The US has no moral superiority; but since we are on the subject we have advanced alot of things- family break down, fatherless children, teen suicide, human trafficking, materialism, crime at the workplace, prisons, corporatism, drug addiction (including perscription drugs), p*rn addiction, debt, poverty just about to the breaking point.

I personally don't consider the US any kind of moral compass.

BTW- there is nothing wrong with interracial marriage.

I am disinterested in this ad, but I am pulling for the Saints.

 

I corrected the term in a later post.

loltacular.

 

Because his statements were hypocritical. Even he has admitted as much. You're beating a very deceased equine here.

CBS didn't refuse to air the moveon ad because they disagreed with it. If they had come out and said that, I could respect their candor, if not their position. They said they didn't air it because the don't want to air "issue" ads. Now, they heartily endorse the biggest "issue" ad in the history of the Super Bowl. If you don't see hypocrisy there, you must be blind.

So abortion is not a political hot potato?!? BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA! Now I understand your position: when reality doesn't line up with your way of thinking, you just make up a new reality. Pathetic.

 

So, is it giddyup's lot in life to defend the indefensible or something?

I swear, I've never seen someone take up the banner of a lost cause so readily and repeatedly in my entire life.

I swear if I started a thread that said water is wet he would come in and tell me that it isn't because the only things that are "wet" are the things which water touches, and water can't touch itself, or some such nonsense.

 

The reality is the difference between a political attack ad that would have run on the current administration during wartime in 2004 and a values ad that would be running during the 2010 Super Bowl.

I qualified my comment on abortion by pointing out that it was not tied to any imminent political referendum on the subject-- a point you of course ignored. It is a value issue which you seem to be wanting to censor.

Of course abortion is in general a huge issue but it is not particularly hot in the coming weeks. There is nothing critically pending about it.

 

So a woman's right to choose is not a value?

 

I'll go ahead and pick up the banner for giddy and say that one thing being a value does not preclude something else from being a value, and he didn't imply that, either.

However, using the term "values ad" for pro-life and "attack ad" for anti-war is kinda conspicuous.