CBS shouldn’t stiff-arm ads

The Super Bowl is a time to indulge in your favorite fried foods while screaming at your television. On this special American holiday, you are able to embarrass yourself and your waistline without feeling guilty.

This year though, CBS is infringing upon your day of edible debauchery with contemplative commercials. Despite pleas from advocates who support abortion rights, CBS is running an ad from the evangelical group Focus on the Family.

The ad from the anti-abortion group reportedly features University of Florida’s golden boy Tim Tebow explaining how he would have been killed had his pregnant and ill mother listened to her doctor’s recommendation of an abortion.

Super Bowl Sunday is a day for fun and frivolity. It is not the time to discuss complicated and controversial topics such as abortion. This is the world of advertising though; if you have the money, then you should be able, and are able, to pay to be part of the most-watched sports event in the U.S.

Unless CBS tells you otherwise.

Besides initiating the heart-wrenching thought of a world without the precious Tebow, CBS is offending an entire group of people by accepting the anti-abortion ad while rejecting a different controversial commercial.

ManCrunch.com submitted its racy but less depressing ad for Super Bowl Sunday, but they were ultimately rejected by CBS executives.

The dating Web site for gay men submitted a short, funny ad that had two men in football jerseys for opposing teams yelling at the television before brushing hands in the snack bowl. Once their hands touch, they go into a fiery, obviously fake, make-out session while their other friend looks bewildered. The commercial is harmless.

It doesn’t seem like the Super Bowl would be the best place to advertise for a men-seeking-men dating site, but at least its commercial sticks with the carefree attitude associated with the event.

Since CBS decided it was necessary to run the anti-abortion ad, it should run the ManCrunch commercial too.

Abortion is a much more controversial topic, so we are not sure why CBS rejected the dating ad. If you are going to run one politically charged ad, then it is only fair to run both.

The New York Times reported that CBS questioned whether ManCrunch even had the almost $3 million needed to pay for the Super Bowl ad. ManCrunch isn’t as popular as other dating Web sites like Match.com or E-Harmony, so the doubt seems reasonable. It is not enough of a reason to ban an ad though.

If the Web site really didn’t have the funds necessary, then there is an advertising agent making a big bonus off of this successful publicity stunt. Since CBS rejected the commercial the dating site has been receiving tons of free attention with more than 500 links on Google.
 

• Facebook Comments
• Site Comments

5 comments

Beha

Thu Feb 11 2010 11:14

Tom, if you ever expect this newspaper to write quality opinion articles, ones that actually have bearing on us and use proper factual evidence, then you are reading the wrong newspaper. All that this newspaper does is take liberal agenda pot-shots at anything and everything they can, whether the story makes sense or not, they'll run it if they can trash anything even remotely seemingly-conservative and praise something liberal-driven.

Tom

Tue Feb 9 2010 18:02

I would just like for the staff to wait for facts before writing articles. Just makes sense. Thats all.

Ashley Carnifax, Online News Editor

Tue Feb 9 2010 14:58

@Tom,

The editorial pieces that appear in the "Opinions" section of the paper, as well as the opinions tab here on the site, are written as the opinion of the editorial staff of the paper as a whole. Several people read over, revise and contribute ideas and opinions to these pieces, thus the title "Our Stance."

If you have any questions please feel free to e-mail myself or the Editor-in-Chief, Jeffrey Riley. You can find our contact information on the "Contact Us" tab on the top of the site.

Thanks,
Ashley Carnifax
Online News Editor

Tom

Tue Feb 9 2010 13:20

Who is "Our Stance". Does the entire staff feel the same way that the author does about the superbowl commercial? or is the author to embarrassed by this horribly written article? What kind of journalist writes an article without any information and before the event even takes place. I would hope to see "Our Stance" write a follow up on this article and apologize, because after actually WATCHING the commercial there is zero reason to have a problem with it. You also say that two men going at it is harmless, but a mother talking about her kid, is controversial?? Yeah that makes total sense. Next time maybe own up to writing this article, unless your name is actually our stance.

Anonymous

Mon Feb 8 2010 15:06

The only thing this article proves is how two-faced today's society is. Everything must be "fair and equal" yet, as this article proves, fair and equal is only what the people preaching it decide it to be. Anti-abortion is offensive, yet homosexuality is not? Perhaps many viewers feel that homosexuality is incredibly lewd and offensive, yet anti-abortion is not? Focus on the Family stated their opinion and provided their ideology in a very non-offensive way. Someone saying they are grateful their mother did not listen to a doctor so they had a chance at life is offensive? How sick are you telling someone they cannot be grateful they are alive? Who are you to demean his quality of life? So what you hate Tim Tebow because he may or may not be an overrated quarterback at a rival Florida school? He is still a human being that deserves just as much of an opinion and right to state it as you do. However, watching two men pointlessly make out during a family event such as the Super Bowl does nothing to enrich or better our society. If anything, it pushes us farther apart. You should be sobered by the fact that people who could potentially become Tim Tebow are snuffed out of existence each and every day. How does watching two men make out during a Super Bowl ad make you do anything similar?

Arguments like this make me sick. It reminds me of when liberal ideologists tried to have Horton Hears a Who, a hysterical, uplifting and family-friendly film, banned because it "promotes" anti-abortion because of the line, "A person is a person, no matter how small," yet mere months later they were praising Revolutionary Road, a sad, depressing and historically inaccurate film about abortion, depression, and an abysmal society. Which would you have rather seen?

Add comment


I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Enter the characters in the image above:

log out