Tell CBS To Air Ads Showing Both Sides of Abortion Issue

BhagavadGita

"The broadcast networks that air the Super Bowl have historically rejected advocacy ads. Yet CBS, which is airing the Super Bowl this year, has accepted an anti-choice ad by the ultra-conservative group Focus on the Family.

Focus on the Family's "celebrate life" (read: anti-choice) ad features Heisman Trophy-winning college football star Tim Tebow. And CBS approved this anti-choice ad, even though the network has repeatedly rejected advocacy ads in past years including a 2004 MoveOn.org ad that went after then-President Bush's fiscal irresponsibility and an ad the same year from the United Church of Christ showing them welcoming a gay couple who had been turned away from another church. And they just rejected a comical ad from a gay dating site from this year's lineup of ads.

So to recap: CBS wouldn't allow a group to criticize Bush, wouldn't let a religious group promote its own tolerance of LGBT families and considers a light-hearted dating ad out of bounds. But CBS is perfectly happy to allow Focus on the Family to promote its conservative social agenda."

Why are they airing only one side of this issue? :?:

If this issue sounds unfair to you, please act by visiting the link below.

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/superbowl_focus/?r_by=7561-418390-BlEAVEx&rc=confemail1

markin ball

Has anyone seen the commerical yet? I haven't looked for it but maybe it is not so bad. I don't think anyone is "pro-abortion" they are pro-choice and I don't think anyone really wants to choose the abortion for flippant reasons. Maybe it is just saying that having your baby can turn out well, too.

BhagavadGita

The only issue here is demanding a broadcasting corporation sell air time to BOTH sides of an issue. Why are they not airing advocacy ads for this and other issues as well?

I know the magazine Adbusters tried to purchase time from the three networks and they too were turned down because of the content, but in truth, the ad was just too alternative. I don't remember the topic.

It would be nice if this thread did not turn into an agrument about when life starts, but instead stick to the subject at hand. Free speech for all with the money to pay for it!

Kel Varnsen

I wonder if this ad was chosen, not because of the content, but because ad buys are down this year? I mean with the amount that networks pay to get the rights to the superbowl, you need to sell every commercial spot possible. And if that means selling ads to anti-abortion people, what are you going to do? And if no group from the pro-choice side has the cash to produce an ad and buy the air time, then once again what is CBS supposed to do? Plus in all reality this is such a heated issue for so many people, does anyone think a 30 second commercial is going to change anyone's opinion?

redrock

Kel Varnsen wrote:

And if no group from the pro-choice side has the cash to produce an ad and buy the air time, then once again what is CBS supposed to do?

That would be my question. Has a pro-choice group requested to air an Ad during superbowl? If so, were they refused?

If not, not sure if there is a gripe here. I'm thinking if the network need the money and can sell air time, it's just a business decision. They may have changed their stance on advocacy ads because money talks!


A 30 second ad will most probably not change anyone's views (those watching the superbowl are probably taking a leak or getting more beers out of the fridge anyway), but it is exposure. It does have some impact - that's why companies pay big money to have their placements during prime time.

BhagavadGita

sigh..............

as if there is no money on the other side of the issue? it's refusal to take the money.