Prior to the Superbowl, there was and continues to be opinions circulating regarding CBS’s decision to air an ad sponsored by “Focus on the Family” featuring Tim Tebow and his mom, Pam. Before seeing it I was a little worked up about it being aired knowing that the alternative viewpoint lightning rod, “Planned Parenthood,” cannot air any controversial messages and must stick to their primary care services. I admit the spot wasn’t as bad as I expected and could actually be seen as supporting a woman’s right to make her own healthcare decisions. However, it does raise questions regarding what the major networks will accept ad revenue for and what they won’t.
When asked directly, CBS stated it would not air ads where "substantial elements of the community [are] in opposition to one another." Seems a little off target when you look at a list of what’s been censored by major networks and what’s aired in the last few years.
Rejected
• Dante’s Inferno – video game ad that was rejected until it accepted CBS’s tagline change from “go to hell” to “hell awaits”
• Mancrush.com - Gay online dating service
• United Church of Christ – message that Jesus welcomes diversity and any sexual orientation
• MoveOn.org – Political ad with a negative view of G. W. Bush
• Condom ads
• Dixie Chicks – new album support after their negative statements re: G.W. Bush
• Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD – Michael Moore’s documentary style film regarding events surrounding 9/11
• Operation Truth – Soldier support ad depicting actual soldier stories
• League of American Voters – Doctors against healthcare reform bill
• BeAWitness – Discusses U.S. lack of response to Darfur
Accepted
• Focus on the Family – Tim and Pam Tebo pro-life/anti-abortion ad
• Military (all branches) – recruitment
• GoDaddy – supposed to be selling online services, but…
• KY – Sexual enhancement products
• Political ads – all candidates
On their own, the lists don’t seem shocking except a few of them completely contradict the rationale. If condom ads are rejected, why promote sexual excitement and explicit ads? If all mug-slinging political ads are accepted, why reject MoveOn? If military recruitment ads are welcome, why not provide a 360 perspective?
Presumably, ads are meant to generate revenue for the networks and have acceptable content for any age group (before 10p). Not sure the above network actions adhere to that basic philosophy.
In a time when it seems to be passé to be politically correct and shock value is prized, maybe it’s time for networks to loosen up and be a little more balanced in the views aired. What do you think? I’d love to know if you agree or if I’m reading too much into this.
2 comments:
Great post! I think these decisions are made based on many factors, most notably the type of show (a.k.a the SuperBowl), viewers and the controversy around a particular subject matter. PR will always be a controversial topic for networks & they have to make their best judgments based on what airing the commercial will mean to their viewers.
Although these advertisements fall under the umbrella of relatively unprotected commercial speech, the fact remains that advertisements are a crucial contributing factor to the marketplace of ideas. Advertisements can act as a reflection of our society: sparking debate on issues and, as in the case of the "rejected ads," help promote the view of fringe issues -- the uncomfortable aspects of our culture that people generally don't like to have to think about.
After studying numerous controversial advertising situations, I've come to my own personal conclusion that advertising messages not falling under the category of obscenity (or unprotected political speech; i.e. "fighting words", libel, etc.) should be aired and published. These controversial topics should be used to ignite public discussion. Do I agree with all of the ads people want to run? Absolutely not. But who says somewhere down the line I won't want to run an advertisement discussing an issue I feel passionately about? Would I want the same anti-controversial approach taken for me? Would I want people telling me my message was too controversial for the media? No.
I understand this "air-all" approach has its shortfalls and is not flawless; however, I feel that leaving the issue unchallenged and quietly accepting refusal to run controversial ads would be a mistake. The minority, no matter how unpleasant, horrendous or downright "wrong," their opinion might be -- deserve some opportunity to speak their mind.
One qualifier: especially in the case of extreme, knowingly controversial ads, the opposing side should also be given the chance to share their opinion. Accepting the ad of one side and not the other is counterproductive and does not serve a purpose in properly educating the public to make informed decisions by themselves.
Anyway, I say let them run. We don't have to pay attention to the ads if we don't want. (Hopefully this comment makes sense... it is Wednesday and my brain is already fried!)
Post a Comment