»» Columnists

Why the Super Bowl Doesn’t Need to be an Ideology-Free Ad Zone

by Michael Triplett | 12:39 pm, January 27th, 2010

» 23 comments

The Super Bowl story of the week, overshadowing the miraculous rise of the New Orleans Saints, is the brewing controversy over the approval by CBS of a 30 second ad sponsored by Focus on the Family to be played during the fourth quarter of the Feb. 7 game. The ad will feature University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow and his mom talking about the fact that she was encouraged by doctors to abort the pregnancy that resulted in Tim’s birth.

Progressive bloggers and activists have criticized the decision, calling Focus on the Family “an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization” and suggesting that the pro-life ad will offend viewers and harm women. They’ve also said that CBS has previously rejected issue ads and therefore the ad by Focus on the Family should not change that precedent. CBS argues they have a new policy towards advocacy ads and that Focus on the Family just happens to be the first benefactor of that changed policy.

Whether CBS has changed its policy or not, allowing Focus on the Family to run its Tebow ad is a good thing, even if you don’t agree with the ideological position of the spot. Here’s why:

Issue Ads are Good for the Viewers and the Advocacy Groups
People think about and discuss controversial issues, even during the Super Bowl. There’s no reason to pretend that people take off their ideological hats when they don a Cheese-head or favorite team jersey. So why pretend that the Super Bowl has to be a five-hour, ideology free-zone?

Advertisement is about selling a product or an idea. Whether it is Doritos or not having an abortion, they are meant to persuade or at least entice. So why does an ad that encourages people not to have an abortion worse, for instance, than ads encouraging people to drink beer or be a day-trader? Even if you don’t agree with Focus on the Family’s agenda, is their agenda more perilous than those of Anheuser-Busch or Audi?

Setting a precedent with the Focus on the Family is also good for advocacy groups. If they can find the money, they can buy an ad that supports their agenda. While it may make sense to draw the advertising line at political ads—and there is an argument that even that ad doesn’t need to be drawn—there’s no reason to limit advertisement to products and services. Think of the possibilities that open up when 98 million viewers—many in hard-to-reach demographics—can finally see your ad pitch for gay rights or domestic violence prevention.

Bob Garfield, Ad Age ad critic and host of On the Media, told the Washington Post that he’s surprised CBS is willing to offend viewers, but says he doesn’t think it will result in a viewer revolt. “I’m not expecting America, or even half of America, to throw their large screens out the window,” Garfield told the paper. “Most years after the Super Bowl, the winning quarterback thanks Jesus . . . but that doesn’t seem to depress the appetite for sports championship. I don’t think this Tebow situation is going to be that big of a deal.”

Being Inconsistent is Not A Good Reason to Drop the Ad
While it is fair to accuse the CBS of being inconsistent in allowing the Focus on the Family ad while previously rejecting other “issue” ads–most famously the 2004 United Church of Christ “bouncer” ad promoting religious tolerance and diversity—inconsistency is not a good reason to stop the pro-life ad. CBS should have allowed the UCC ad because it was not inflammatory, which is the same reason they should allow the Tebow ad.

>>>>Next Page – view the UCC “Bouncer ad”>>>>

Pages: 1 2

Ad Age, Ad controversy, Bob Garfield, Focus on the Familiy, On The Media, Super Bowl, Tim Tebow, United Church of Christ, Washington Post

sarainitaly

pro-choice means pro-CHOICE – not pro-abortion or pro-death.

there is nothing wrong with celebrating the choice of life.

why anyone thinks it is a bad thing is beyond me. And i am pro-choice.
There is nothing wrong with showing girls/women that you also have the choice of life.
And we should all hope that we reduce, possibly eliminate, the need for abortions, at all.
I think NOW is taking the wrong position. Good for CBS, if they air this.
Zakk

Well said Sara, I agree. It’s about choice not pro-abortion. Although in my heart I do feel that the movement is more or less about abortion and not so much about choosing life. But either way, it’s about having the choice not making the choice.
The Real Royal King

I can’t say this much matters to me. If I watch more than a few plays, I’d be surprised. The Super Bowl is a snooze for me. The announcers are a bunch of bloated, run-on sentence spewing, gossipy, rambling, narcissistic Peter Pans, the half-time is low brow and tacky, the play review is tedious and boring and the commercials are interminable. When did we lose real, honest-to-God football, and why? As for the message, I think America can do much better with much less Tebow.
liberalontogeny

Maybe too cynical, but CBS might be stating “that revenue would be pretty awesome”!

Not because of super bowl ads, but their predictions of what’s to come via recent SCOTUS decision with unlimited corporate and union funds to finance their political advocacy projects.
Facebook User

Where did Focus on the Family get this money to pay for this ad? In August 2009, they were pleading for donors to get them out of debt, as they claimed to be broke. They promised their donors they would be fiscally responsible with the money donors sent to them. Now is this being fiscally responsible or are they using this is a propaganda ploy for people to send them more money to waste?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/08/11/national/a175609D05.DTL
writer

Go Peyton! (And bring back Janet Jackson for halftime.)
http://www.uselessbeauty.com Vidiot

That’s a really interesting link, Facebook User.

And I’m with Triplett on this one. As long as CBS is consistent with their stated policies, what’s the harm? The marketplace is open to all, and a well-constructed advocacy ad — even if it’s advocating a position I disagree with — is likely to be more interesting and spur more discussion than the latest ad pushing crummy watery beer. They should’ve run the UCC ad a few years back, and I see no reason why they shouldn’t run the Focus on the Family ad now.
Nachi

That’s what we need. More involvement by the Super – Christies.
Zakk

Christian or not, what is wrong with the message? What are the lefties who are ‘for’ abortion affraid of? Oh No! Someone might decide not to get an abortion because of what Tim Tebow said? Oh the horror!

In the words of Larry King; ‘What do you care?’
Michael Triplett

Facebook User. I believe FotF says they got money from an individual donor who is specifically paying for the ad. While it’s fair to ask how they can afford it, I could ask the same question everytime I see a Chrysler or GM ad since they are allegedly broke too.
The Real Royal King

I’ve been around many moderates, progressives and liberals during my life, and I have yet to meet a single one who was pro-abortion. In fact, I’ve none a number of these people who have worked with young women to find viable alternatives to abortions they were considering.

I’ve been around many rightists during my life, and I have never met one who was pro-life. Each have thought that we don’t execute enough people as quickly as we should. Ergo, they are simply anti-abortion with little regard for the value of life.
http://trickletown.vox.com/ Trickletown

Hey liberal, WTF is an ‘ontogeny’?
http://trickletown.vox.com/ Trickletown

Liberalontogeny, never mind, I looked it up ;)
ontogeny, ontogenesis ((biology) the process of an individual organism growing organically; a purely biological unfolding of events involved in an organism changing gradually from a simple to a more complex level.
rmbltmbl

Yeah, I’ll be waiting for the progressives(funded by Soros naturally) to come out with a commercial of a woman saying, “I had an abortion, and now I don’t have to take care of any kids.. and you can too today! Call now!”

Thank God Tebow made it past the ‘not human life stage’ to tell us.
JimW

rmbltmbl said something very beautiful: “Thank God Tebow made it past the ‘not human life stage’ to tell us.”
liberalontogeny

Very Nice Trickletown!

You can apply to conservatives as well. Simply, people are not born “conservative” or “liberal”.Just like People are not born speaking english or french. They learn it.

Person’s life events (friends, TV, envoronment) develop their liberal or conservative leanings. In the definition you provide, replace “organism” with “Human Being”
Ted

rmbltmbl – You qualify for dumb ass status. It’s hard to imagine a bigger moron…maybe Jim W.
same2u

I have no problem with the ad, as long as CBS is consistent with its position.

That said, the ad is not persuasive in the least.
pyrope

There are only two questions one should have to decide whether the ad in question should be aired: 1. Is the First Amendment still in effect? 2. Is the ad paid for? I believe the answer to both questions is “YES.” Therefore, the ad should run. Maybe the pro-abortion folks can run an ad showing a partial birth abortion.
Zakk

If the pro-choice folks have a message, they should be able to put it out there as well. Actually, I would like to see how that ad goes. Might be a lesson in marketing and spin. How exactly do you promote abortion?

“I was going to have twins, but thanks to a long needle and a vacuum, I’ve only got one. When the doctor asked me which one I wanted to keep, I just told him, surprise me!”
http://www.uselessbeauty.com Vidiot

Zakk, “pro-choice” != “pro-abortion”. But nice straw man, though.
rmbltmbl

Awww, thanks Ted for contributing to the conversa– for your contribution. You know how much I value your very constructive criticism!
rmbltmbl

Ted says:
January 28, 2010 at 4:14 pm

Jim W. – Were you going to simply make accusations or offer up anything of substance? Just curious.