I Am Disgusted By CBS And Its Homophobic Double-Standard
You know, I had no problem with Tim Tebow’s pro-life Superbowl ad. It was fundamentally about choice – about the choice of a mother to keep her baby, which is a choice that resulted in a talented and seemingly highly moral, decent kid who happens to be a ginormous football star. I am pro-choice, but I don’t consider that inconsistent at all with pro-life — there’s no way that having an abortion, ever, is an easy decision, and it more often errs on the side of absolutely wrenching, not to mention physically debilitating.
I know that pro-choice organizations were up in arms over the ad — and there were legitimate concerns about the potrayal of the ‘choice’ Tebow’s mom made; and the organization behind it, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, is, as Tracy Clark-Flory pointed out at Broadsheet, not just antiabortion but specifically and explicitly anti-choice. And the Tebow ad, presented by all accounts as a simple moral choice, did not take into account the circumstances of the pregnancy, the potential complications nor potential threats to the mother’s life, nor present a balanced look at all the factors surrounding that kind of highly personal decision regarding a woman and her body.
Well duh. It’s a pro-life ad. But still, even with all of that, I thought, let it air — it is a beautiful story, it might change the mind of a skittish 25 year old nervously wondering about her options — or provide comfort to a 17 year old sitting in the room with stern parents, who had none. At this point in the abortion debate, each side knows what it stands for and what it wants (though only one side is willing to allow that women can make that choice in either direction!), and in my view the Tebow story was a worthwhile one to be heard, just as worthwhile as, say, the girl who was “sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it” (shout-out to Republican South Dakota State Senator Bill Napoli, yo!
So fine, CBS, show the ad. Even though you have a history of rejecting advocacy ads, even though it might upset some of your audience, let’s do it — we’re a nation of grownups, and it’s 2010. We can handle it, right?
This is the point where I punch a wall — because apparently that only applies to pro-life ads featuring handsome football players wearing Bible-verse makeup. CBS has REJECTED the scary Mancrunch ad featuring two football fans realizing they leurve each other and making out furiously.
It’s true! It’s too hot for TV! Apparently the network that thought it was okay to have Frosty the Snowman talking about his PORN COLLECTION gets all squirmy when confronted with two schlubby dudes touching hands in the chip dish and then going in for the smooch (and by the way, for the fakest, spoofiest most non-lip-touching smooch ever. Look at that video below. They are not even actually kissing). This network, which has no problem carving up various unlucky victims across NCIS and numerous CSI franchises, decreed the two-dudes-kissing ad to be “not within the Network’s Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday.”
Oh but seeing this dude in his briefs is okay, because there’s no danger of him kissing any nearby man. Though there is a danger of double-taking at the flesh-toned bra of the woman behind him, who looks for a moment like she’s topless. Ladies in their bras? BRING ‘EM ON! Men in their undies? WE CAN’T GET ENOUGH! So says USA Today: “Super Bowl to show more ads with people in their underwear.” TAKE IT OFF, AD PEOPLE! Just as long as it’s clear that the ladies in their bras are with the men in their undies and vice versa. Anything else is way too confusing for CBS’ chest-thumping football-loving man-viewers and the curvacious blondes refilling their Cheeto bowls. EXCUSE ME FOR A MOMENT WHILE I BONK MY HEAD AGAINST THIS WALL.
This is flat-out, straight-up homophobia. Not to mention a flat-out, straight-up double standard. My God, the lingerie-clad ladies in that PETA commercial had to near-hump a broccoli to be banned. GoDaddy.com girl Candice Michelle may have upset the committee with her tank-top strap-snapping commercial in 2005, but it still ran. And fine! Why not? Oh my God stop the presses, sexy ladies have big boobies. But hey, stop the presses again: THERE ARE GAY PEOPLE IN AMERICA. PROBABLY A BUNCH OF THEM RUNNING THINGS AT CBS. (And certainly more than a few starring on the network…particularly as the voice of Frosty the Porn Collector.)
This ad could not be less offensive or less intrusive. (There’s even an appropriately-shocked friend in place, just to let you know that you can be shocked, too!) Fine, it could be the slippery slope to hellfire and damnation and gay adoption (NOOOOO NOT GAY ADOPTION!) but CBS, you’re a broadcast network, and you are on the airwaves by the good grace of the public that you serve in so doing. Yes yes to budgets and creative license — hello, NBC’s The Tonight Show With Jay Leno! — but where policies like this are concerned, there has got to be a uniform, consistent standard. You can’t hold yourself out as the moral guardian of the people (no gay ads! We have standards!) and the guardian of free speech (hi, Mrs. Tebow!). You can’t have it both ways — you really gotta pick.
I know, I know. Some decisions are hard. But that’s what choice is all about.
CBS rejects gay dating site’s Super Bowl ad [THR]
ManCrunch SuperBowl Ad REJECTED: Gay Dating Site Ad Denied By CBS [HuffPo]
The Scary, Scary Video (AVERT YOUR INNOCENT EYES!):
12 comments
I agree, Rachel, that both ads should be seen. The mancrunch ad is hilarious, but if you read the article from THR, CBS also said they couldn’t verify the credit status of the site and were skeptical of their ability to pay for the ad. We don’t know it if that’s true. Perhaps you could use your contacts in “the business” to confirm that story. Either way mancrunch will reap the reward of all the free publicity, and if they really can’t pay for it this year, maybe they will next Super Bowl. I suspect will we hear a lot from them in the coming months. Not a bad thing.
I don’t get all the angst from others about the Tebow ad. It hasn’t been seen by anyone but CBS and those involved in the production. It might be wise to hold one’s fire rather than risk looking foolish. If the ad itself is innocuous….and just a heart warming tale, the screamers are going to look just like that. Screamers.
Rachel, it’s not homophobic, the two issues are not even comparable, especially from a business standpoint. It’s like apples and oranges. The Tebow ad will piss off a miniscule number of hard core feminists who probably would never even see it considering it’s the Superbowl. There simply aren’t enough potential “offendees” in running the Tebow spot for CBS to be concerned, no risk of lost revenue.
On the other hand (be it good bad or indifferent) showing 2 men in a homosexual “lip-lock” to an audience of superbowl fans (yes primarily men) will offend millions, an enormous risk of lost revenue. I think it’s safe to say the 95% of men that are NOT homosexuals don’t really care a whole lot what 2 guys do in the privacy of their home or their bedroom, but I can guarantee you that 95% of us don’t want to WATCH it.
Does anyone actually believe that the Mancrunch.com ad would make the cut? Did Mancrunch even belive it? I hadn’t heard of the site before hearing about this ad going under review. I’m betting that Mancrunch knew that the ad would never make it on air, and that they would garner more publicity by being rejected than by airing. Most Americans hadn’t heard of the site before, but now Mancrunch has all the benefits and hype of having an ad in the Super Bowl, without having to pay for ad time.
Plus, they have the added benefit of having other broadcast and cable networks jumping at the chance to prove they’re not homophobic and airing the ad in prime time to Mancrunch’s intended audience (which I’m sure isn’t the Super Bowl demographic).
From beginning to end, this was just a BRILLIANT ploy by Mancrunch’s PR team.
ABC shows same-sex kissing on a weekly basis, but they’re still taking heat for cutting some pop singer, a month or so ago. I’m sure their argument is “context” and if they wanted, CBS could probably claim the same.
Yesterday, when the ad started popping up around the blogosphere, I pulled up a YouTube of the snickers ad from 2007 and I see other groups doing the same. In my mind, it’s almost an apples to oranges comparison, except one is (arguably) “pro” and the other “anti”.
Personally, I have no problem with the ad from a thematic angle. Though if I were CBS, I’d want secured payment in advance and if I were the head of Mancrunch, I’d really have to wonder if this would be the best use of my limited advertising dollars. I mean, you could probably sponsor a year’s worth of Brothers & Sisters and the entire Bravo lineup for that kind of money.
IOW: Of course it’s a publicity stunt by the website. How would they have the money? Have they ever advertised anywhere else? Ever? What percentage of the Super Bowl audience is a potential customer for their product, while how many people have heard the free publicity generated by their rejection and what percentage of their target demographic consider them heroes?
Mancrunch never intendent this to make the air. This was a stunt to create buzz and get free publicity, which will in turn boost traffic. Smart move by this crew. Everybody remember 2004 when CBS had the Super Bowl? That’s why we are having ‘The Who’ doing the half-time show. Well, that and the fact Who songs are used in those CSI shows.
No controversy!
This is a no brainer from the start, The Tebow add has nothing to do with it, that add is not controversial at all. (Democrat Underground get over it.)
Myself, I have no problem with the add, If anything it looked like a spoof. Rachel, they are getting more free miles out of this then if their add would have run. I’m with Magister on this part, if CBS would have said “Show us the Money”. Mancruch would have backed out. How much capitol can they possibly have?
Though I have to admit, it would have been fun to see Malkin, World Net & Pawn Vannity go nuts.
I have no problem with Mancrunch doing this as a stunt, and I know there are questions about the site’s liquidity – but that’s not the reason CBS gave for rejecting it. They said it was “not within the Network’s Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday,” which goes to the ad itself. I agree that Mancrunch is getting free pub from this but my larger concern is open-mindedness and a fairly, consistently-applied standard. I don’t even watch football, though I like Superbowl parties.
@Rachel: I’ll could agree that it may be a double standard based upon the 2007 Snickers ad, which also aired on CBS, but you know off the top of my head, I can’t think of anything else CBS that features same-sex kissing. As I said in my earlier comment, ABC has at least four or five shows with affectionate homosexual couples and they may have as many as seven, but I can’t think of any on CBS and for that matter, ABC’s commitment didn’t seem to win them a lot of friends during the Adam Lambert thing anyway. So why should CBS go out on a limb, if they’ll be damned if they do and damned if they don’t?
The aforementioned Snickers ad got the company some heat for it’s ending and some of it may have spilled over onto CBS. The 2004 Super Bowl, which was also broadcast by CBS was the one with the infamous “wardrobe malfunction”, so I don’t know how much you can blame the network for being skittish — the last two times they hosted the broadcast, there was some kind of controversy.
But, I don’t see how scantily-clad women or sexy commercials are a “double-standard”. They should appeal to the Super Bowl demographic and garner few complaints, while a couple of non-gay actors, non-kissing in rip-off of an overlong Mad TV skit is obviously engineered to generate publicity. After all, since they probably don’t have the money and put together a rather amateurish ad, how hard did Mancrush fight to be included?
Every year we get PETA ads that are designed to be rejected and GoDaddy got a lot of press from the consideration and the airing. Yes, it would be nice if CBS had accepted the ad, but it’s their airtime and perhaps after the wardrobe malfunction, they’re bending too far in the other direction. And, as the whole ABC/Adam Lambert thing/fallout has shown, context is something that had to be taken into consideration.
^^context something they may have felt had to be taken into consideration^^
(Because you know, I don’t watch sports and I wouldn’t complain about this or any other ad.
Basically, I don’t have a dog in this hunt)
“Man Crunch is the premier service connecting men with other men and allowing them to open up about the down low.”
Where many many men come out and play.
Down-low (sexual slang): Men who identify as straight, but have sex with men on the side without disclosing this to their female sexual partner(s).
Sounds like a site for married men/men in the closet to hook up with other men on the down low. I don’ think it should be aired…. It promotes cheating and their tag line makes it sound like a big sex party operation. Not very family oriented.
Because of shows like Brothers and Sisters, that have same sex kissing, I don’t know if it was so much the guys kissing as it was the actual content/purpose of the site. The kissing was funny and cheesy, not racy.
Also the network said its sales department had difficulty verifying the credit of the site to guarantee payment of the estimated $2.5 million cost to air the ad.
“After reviewing the ad – which is entirely commercial in nature – our Standards and Practices department decided not to accept this particular spot,” said CBS in a statement. “As always, we are open to working with the client on alternative submissions.”
Sources said the network felt the site was using the tried-and-true tactic of generating free publicity by submitting a Super Bowl ad they knew was likely to be rejected and was ultimately unwilling to pay for.
@Rachel: Like I said I didn’t have a problem with the add, but CBS could be spooked because of that Wardrobe malfunction a few years back. Didn’t they get fined big time over that? (which I think they have appealed) They are going to fall on the side of ‘Let’s play it really safe this year’.
It’s nice for us to talk about morals and standards, but we ain’t the ones getting wacked by a big ass fine because a bunch of ya-hoos burnt up the FCC switchboard cause they became upset about two guys kissing.
I’m no law expert but look into ‘F.C.C. vs. W.B.A.I.’ or ‘F.C.C. vs. FOX television stations’ . One vote the other way and those stations would have been in deep doo doo. And in the case of WBAI, only one person complained to get it all started.
Now here’s the joke, ready? If they put the Super Bowl on cable, different ball game. They could run the add, people could complain all they want. And it wouldn’t matter. Cable & Broadcast, two different animals.
So it gets down to this Rachel, and yeah it’s f’d up but if you complain? It doesn’t cost CBS, if the ya-hoos complain? it could and probably will cost them big bucks.
“I don’t even watch football, though I like Superbowl parties.” Rachel, you kill me! LOL!
@magister FYI regarding the idea that CBS does not have any shows with two males kissing you are incorrect. The soap opera As The World Turns has a young male couple, Luke and Noah. The characters on the show are an openly gay couple who have public displays or affection all the time. As The World Turns airs during the day with no parental warnings about the storyline. The Luke and Noah storyline is one the more popular storylines and they are one of the more popular couples on the show.
MSNBC: Bart Stupak Called ‘Baby Killer’ By GOP Rep On House Floor

According to MSNBC's Luke Russert, pro-life Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), who held out until the last minute for more restrictive language on federal funding for abortion, was called a "baby-killer" as he spoke on the House floor tonight. The video of the report after the jump.
Tiger Woods Talks With ESPN: “I Hope They Clap for Birdies, Too”
Earlier this afternoon, Tiger Woods gave his first interviews since the accident last November with two sources, ESPN and The Golf Channel. The terms were surprisingly open: five minutes straight with no questions off limits, but mandated to be held for broadcast until 7:30 p.m. EDT. It's been a busy 10 days in Tiger news since he signed former George W. Bush Press Sec Ari Fleischer on board to run rebuild Woods's image.
More TV headlines:
»Health Care Bill Passes; Charles Krauthammer ‘It Will Never Be Repealed’ »7
»Rahm Emanuel Thinks Washington Is Working Just Fine »1
»Rory Kennedy To Produce Rosie O’Donnell’s New Talk Show »1
»This Week: Karl Rove and David Plouffe Spar Over ‘Mission Accomplished’ »5
»Networks Come Out In Full Force For The HCR Debate
© 2010 Mediaite, LLC | About Us | Advertise | Newsletter | Privacy | User Agreement | Disclaimer | Power Grid FAQ | Contact | Archives
| Dan Abrams, Founder
| Hosting by Datagram
|
RSS





















