Church ad banned from CBS and ABC

[Rex Kickass]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/12/...dban/index.html

[FlaSoxxJim]

That's bulls***. :angry:

 

The ad was promoting inclusion with the quite excellent tag line, "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we." And it is seen in the current have-to-be-sensitive-to-the-feelings-of-the-"Values"(*cough!*)-voters climate as controversial.

 

I realize it is not censorship per se, since these corporations are allowed to decide what ads they feel are appropriate and they do have to be wary of viewer backlash. But for NBC – home of the first sitcom with openly gay lead characters – to deem a church ad "too political" because it says, 'Look, we're about acceptance and inclusion and love for our neighbor' ... That's openly hypocritical and it really sucks.

 

It also says the networks are well aware that the "Values" voters in the heartland are a force to be reckoned with and can make programmers think twice about any 'objectionable' content they might air.

[jasonxctf]

it must be that liberal bias that kept the ads off the air.

[jackie hayes]

I don't know, I don't find this to be a very controversial decision. I thought this argument was right on -- "An NBC spokeswoman said the problem with the ad was not its depiction of same-sex couples at church, but rather its implication that other religions are not open to all people." I think that message is clear from the ad, and I also think a network would naturally be opposed to broadcasting a message that attacked another religion. (I can't remember any examples of such messages -- eg, the Mormon ads are pretty broad-based, everyone should spend time w/ their kids, etc.) I don't see this as kowtowing to "values" voters (and I'm not at all a "values" voter myself).

[Texsox]

I don't know, I don't find this to be a very controversial decision.  I thought this argument was right on -- "An NBC spokeswoman said the problem with the ad was not its depiction of same-sex couples at church, but rather its implication that other religions are not open to all people."  I think that message is clear from the ad, and I also think a network would naturally be opposed to broadcasting a message that attacked another religion.  (I can't remember any examples of such messages -- eg, the Mormon ads are pretty broad-based, everyone should spend time w/ their kids, etc.)  I don't see this as kowtowing to "values" voters (and I'm not at all a "values" voter myself).

And coke doesn't tell you how they are better than Pepsi or Miller vs. Budweiser. Apply the same advertising standards as you would a resort, or restaurant.

[CrimsonWeltall]

And coke doesn't tell you how they are better than Pepsi or Miller vs. Budweiser. Apply the same advertising standards as you would a resort, or restaurant.

 

...that's exactly what they do.

 

The last few ads by both Bud and Miller have attacked each other.

 

I don't think this church ad specifies any churches as being the intolerant ones, anyways. So it's more like "unhappy with your beer? try this one."

[Rex Kickass]

CBS actually blamed it on the gays. Saying it was directly related to the Federal Marriage Amendment proposal. Since this insinuates a gay couple, that means promotion of gay marriage. So they said it was politically incendiary or some such garbage.

 

Which makes me wonder if NBC is going to cancel Will and Grace so they won't be fined by the FEC?

[jackie hayes]

And coke doesn't tell you how they are better than Pepsi or Miller vs. Budweiser. Apply the same advertising standards as you would a resort, or restaurant.

I think religions are treated differently than companies. (The ABC spokesperson says something to this effect in the article.) Which I don't mind, personally. But if they'll accept ads promoting a specific religion (which I seriously doubt), then this one should be allowed.

[Texsox]

CBS actually blamed it on the gays. Saying it was directly related to the Federal Marriage Amendment proposal. Since this insinuates a gay couple, that means promotion of gay marriage. So they said it was politically incendiary or some such garbage.

 

Which makes me wonder if NBC is going to cancel Will and Grace so they won't be fined by the FEC?

Someone is gay on Will and Grace??

[jackie hayes]

CBS actually blamed it on the gays. Saying it was directly related to the Federal Marriage Amendment proposal. Since this insinuates a gay couple, that means promotion of gay marriage. So they said it was politically incendiary or some such garbage.

 

Which makes me wonder if NBC is going to cancel Will and Grace so they won't be fined by the FEC?

Well... Maybe. That's actually hearsay, what the church says CBS says. But I agree that it's not a good reason to reject the ad.

[Rex Kickass]

I think religions are treated differently than companies.  (The ABC spokesperson says something to this effect in the article.)  Which I don't mind, personally.  But if they'll accept ads promoting a specific religion (which I seriously doubt), then this one should be allowed.

I seem to remember a ton of ads for Dianetics when I was a kid. Dunno if I saw it on network TV, i was too busy playing with my lego.

[Texsox]

I seem to remember a ton of ads for Dianetics when I was a kid. Dunno if I saw it on network TV, i was too busy playing with my lego.

L. Ron Hubbard I remember the ads for the book. :fthecubs

[Rex Kickass]

From the Des Moines Register...

CBS has a longstanding policy against accepting advocacy or issue-oriented ads, according to Jeremy Murphy, a spokesman for the network.

 

In the rejection slip sent to United Church of Christ headquarters in Cleveland, the network wrote: "Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations, and the fact that the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast."

[Gene Honda Civic]

From the Des Moines Register...

They should just tell The Truth :rolly

[Soxy]

*sigh* Glad I can watch anti-choice commericals, mike ditka throw a football through a tire swing, the prepubescent Calvin Klein commercials (prolly dating myself with that one), commercials for the ecologically unethical Hummer, and campaign adds that really are no more than schoolyard taughts, but NOT a message of inclusion.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

If I was a father I'd be more worried about my kid asking "Daddy, what is erectile dysfunction?" and all the thinly veiled penis jokes that are seen as "medical advertisement" than talking to my kid about a message of inclusion.

 

Besides, according to the campaign literature from the Republican National Committee, it was going to be the liberals who banned the Bible -- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/24/...ain645393.shtml

 

Photo of it:

 

[Gene Honda Civic]

If I was a father I'd be more worried about my kid asking "Daddy, what is erectile dysfunction?" and all the thinly veiled penis jokes that are seen as "medical advertisement" than talking to my kid about a message of inclusion.

 

Besides, according to the campaign literature from the Republican National Committee, it was going to be the liberals who banned the Bible -- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/24/...ain645393.shtml

 

Photo of it:

 

That's freakin' hilarious.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

http://www.stillspeaking.com/default.htm

 

Video of the ad. I really don't see how it's controversial since it's damn true. I mean when Jerry "The purple Teletubby is part of the vast homosexual agenda" Falwell states that if there are any gay Republicans, they should join the Democratic party as his means of inclusion -- the UCC's message is damn true.

[jackie hayes]

In my mind, this ad can be interpreted 3 ways (not mutually exclusive). First, as an advertisement for a particular religion. Second, as an attack on other Christian denominations (without necessarily a plug for themselves). Third, as a call for tolerance through society in general.

 

If it's the first type of ad, then I think the networks are correct in refusing it. I don't think it's healthy to have proselytization on tv. Religion is not just another product (if it can be called a "product" at all), it is much more important than your beer choice. I don't imagine networks want to be associated in any way with particular religious views. (Suppose a group that worked to convert Jews bought a large amount of time on NBC -- how would that make the network look?) And how would you define the limits of this? Suppose a radical Islamic group wanted to post an ad -- not a terrorist group itself, but an apologist organization. Should ABC, et al, be required to run the ad, or allowed to judge this particular set of religious views not 'valid enough' to be able to pay for a spot?

 

If it's the second type of ad, I also think that the networks are correct in refusing it. I see no reason to force the networks to tick off half of their audience (perhaps more). And I'm not sure why this denomination feels the need to, either -- it would seem rather petty unless it's b/c the ad also functions as suggested in the first interpretation. Moreover, this particular ad is especially incendiary -- it aims to link anti-gay aspects of other denominations to racism and discrimination against the disabled. (Btw, I am trying to be pc, but I'm not sure if all the terms are neutral, apologies if not.) That's a lotta insult to heap on some of your viewers, and certainly there's some limit to the attacks that should be allowed in ads.

 

Now, if it's the third type of ad, the network should either allow it or be very careful in not allowing issue ads. Those would include thinly-veiled "pro-family" ads. But it's absurd to think that this ad fits any such description -- the context of the church, the mention of Jesus -- this is all about religion and which religious views are acceptable, NOT tolerance in a general way. If they want to make an ad like that, it's easy -- you see these ads all the time, 'spend time with your kids', the kid saying 'I'm getting mixed messages about women and violence' to the postman. But don't pretend that it's about tolerance generally, when you put bouncers in front of a church.

[Rex Kickass]

There are ads promoting the Book of Mormon all the time. The ABC affiliate in Lansing, Michigan runs Jack Van Impe Presents, a paid program endorsing very conservative Christian views on Sunday afternoon/evenings. The networks may not run that, but their affiliates do - even on Network owned affils. Then there are the "public service" messages by the Mormons that are running. And another commercial from the same ad campaign that has been accepted. Doesn't NBC own PAX38 in Chicago?

 

The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The networks don't have to run the ad - but it certainly has nothing to do with FCC standards. It has everything to do with revealing the actual intent of the heads of network programming politically.

[jackie hayes]

The networks don't have to run the ad - but it certainly has nothing to do with FCC standards. It has everything to do with revealing the actual intent of the heads of network programming politically.

I never said it had anything to do w/ the FCC, I don't think it does. But I don't know how you reach the second conclusion, that it has to do with the "politics". I don't hold those politics, but I would reject the ad too.

[Rex Kickass]

But you would also reject paid religious programming on similar grounds, right? If you don't, how do you draw the line?

[jackie hayes]

But you would also reject paid religious programming on similar grounds, right? If you don't, how do you draw the line?

Yeah, I would -- ads promoting a particular religion. I'm not opposed to the Mormon 'public service' ads. I'm not convinced they're anything more than that, but I admit I don't remember anything about them in detail, just that when they've been on I never thought they're proselytizing.

 

Edit: I'd add, though, that even though I would reject those ads, I think this one is worse, because instead of simply promoting a religion (which I don't like), this one attacks other religions. It's basic message is not 'Look into the UCC', it's 'Those other denominations don't follow Christ.' That seems deeply offensive.

[southsider2k5]

And coke doesn't tell you how they are better than Pepsi or Miller vs. Budweiser. Apply the same advertising standards as you would a resort, or restaurant.

Big, big difference is that no one will cancel their adverting based on a Coke commericial. Businesses will cancel their advertising based on gay/religious content, and the networks know this. For them this is a $based decesion, with not airing the ads being the safest route for their bottom line.

 

Personally I don't agree with it at all. I think it is hugely hypocratical. It is OK to exploit gays for profits, but when people want to express their opinions about gay lifestyles, then it isn't OK. Its bulls***. If I headed a gay/lesbian group I would be boycotting the s*** out of these networks.

[Texsox]

Big, big difference is that no one will cancel their adverting based on a Coke commericial.  Businesses will cancel their advertising based on gay/religious content, and the networks know this.  For them this is a $based decesion, with not airing the ads being the safest route for their bottom line.

 

Personally I don't agree with it at all.  I think it is hugely hypocratical.  It is OK to exploit gays for profits, but when people want to express their opinions about gay lifestyles, then it isn't OK.  Its bulls***.  If I headed a gay/lesbian group I would be boycotting the s*** out of these networks.

I could understand advertisers shying away from shows, but not as much other advertisements. I could see some businesses not buying Will & Grace, but not buying Seinfeld because a Church ad is also running, may be a stretch. In fact, I could see some advertisers, if a controversy really got going, asking the traffic director for placement next to the controversial ad for maximum exposure. I do not believe there is much "guilt by association" with other ads as there is with programming. They place beer ads next to car commercials. You would think the car companies would care about stuff like that.