What's Wrong With this Ad? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 11-18-2004, 12:55 PM

Art, I do agree with you that all avenues don't have to be the same...

but what the broadcasters are now saying after the success of Sopranos, Sex in the City, The Sheild, Nip/Tuck that they cannot compete because the cable industry has a different standard and they are loosing market share.

I do agree that they are losing market share due to programming alternatives, but then again, they do need to be wise about their programming which I think that Viacom has done with CBS - MTV - SHO, they have different standards, but still complement each other and have different avenues to bring the edgier content.

ABC doesn't have anything in their portfolio that would allow them to do so. ABC also has a family image to maintain which is part of their core value system.

kutulu · 11-18-2004, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Averett

Now, lets discuss this later, football is on. And you know what that means. Half naked cheerleaders flaunting their breasts and butts. And bone crushing on the field hits"

Averett wins, thread closed.

It's the black man/white woman thing. Here is the breakdown of race and relationships:

white on white - best
black on black - fine
white man, black woman - ok, since it's what the white man wants
black man, white woman - get the rope

the_marq · 11-18-2004, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

It's the black man/white woman thing. Here is the breakdown of race and relationships:

white on white - best
black on black - fine
white man, black woman - ok, since it's what the white man wants
black man, white woman - get the rope

Wow, tell me that isn't the way most Americans saw it. The race issue never even entered into it for me till you mentioned it (or someone earlier in this thread). Are your race relations really that bad in the US?

kutulu · 11-18-2004, 01:29 PM

I don't think its really that bad but there are a lot of people who think that way. Black man/white woman is definitely more taboo than white man/black woman

Averett · 11-18-2004, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Averett wins, thread closed.

Whoo Hoo!!

Here's where the race thing came up... Shut Up Tony Dungy...

Quote:

Dungy: 'Monday Night' intro racially offensive
Story Tools: Print Email
Associated Press
Posted: 2 minutes ago

If ABC hoped to generate a little bit more buzz for "Monday Night Football" and "Desperate Housewives," its steamy intro to the Dallas-Philadelphia game sure did the trick.

Two days after the network aired the segment featuring Eagles star receiver Terrell Owens and actress Nicollette Sheridan, coaches and players were still talking about it.

Reaction ranged from amusement to anger. Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy found it racially offensive.

"To me that's the first thing I thought of as an African-American," Dungy said Wednesday.

"I think it's stereotypical in looking at the players, and on the heels of the Kobe Bryant incident I think it's very insensitive. I don't think that they would have had Bill Parcells or Andy Reid or one of the owners involved in that," he added, a reference to the coaches in the game.

ABC's intro showed Sheridan wearing only a towel and provocatively asking Owens to skip the game for her as the two stood alone in a locker room. She drops the towel and jumps into Owens' arms. Owens is black and Sheridan is white.

"If that's what we have to do to get ratings, I'd rather not get them," Dungy said. "I realize that ratings pays us in this league, but if that's what we have to do, I'm willing to take a pay cut."

Philadelphia quarterback Donovan McNabb wasn't quite as vocal, saying he didn't find the segment offensive and believed people were overreacting. (Owens wasn't at practice Wednesday, excused for what the team said were personal reasons.)

"Some people do different things," McNabb said. "Not saying that my wife would allow me to do that, but it's just something that was done, and you move on."

Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, had a different view, questioning ABC's judgment in airing the scene.

"I wonder if Walt Disney would be proud," he said.

ABC is owned by The Walt Disney Co. The FCC will review complaints and decide whether or not to open an investigation that could result in a fine against the network.

"It would seem to me that while we get a lot of broadcasting companies complaining about indecency enforcement, they seem to be continuing to be willing to keep the issue at the forefront, keep it hot and steamy in order to get financial gains and the free advertising it provides," Powell told CNBC.

The segment drew complaints from viewers and the NFL. ABC Sports apologized for using the introduction to promote its show, "Desperate Housewives." Dungy's comment, however, was the first that mentioned race. He also said the segment played off stereotypes of athletes.

"That athletes are sexual predators and that that stuff is more important than what's going on on the field. That he (Owens) was more concerned with that than the game, that's a terrible message to send," Dungy said. "I'm particularly sensitive to that. It could have been any player and I would have been outraged, but being an African-American, it particularly hurt me."

A decade ago Dungy was outspoken about the lack of black coaches in the NFL. There are currently five, including Dungy and Lovie Smith, whose Bears will face Dungy's Colts on Sunday.

"It shouldn't have happened, and I couldn't believe it did happen," Smith said.

Dungy said ABC had asked the Colts, who played on Monday night last week, "to do some things I thought would make our players look a little bit silly (although) nothing like that."

"We kind of declined," he said.

Some players were also shocked.

"My mouth dropped when I saw that," said Washington tight end Mike Sellers, who was watching the game with his wife. "I said, 'Did they actually plan this on TV?"'

But at least one of his teammates wasn't bothered.

"I thought it was kind of cool, myself," linebacker Marcus Washington said. "I enjoyed the skit."

troit · 11-18-2004, 02:38 PM

Sure they can make us watch a million different viagra like commercials (trying explaining to your kid what a four hour hard on is..) but we can't see the small of a woman's back? C'mon now - this is america, the land of free speach. Go to any other country and naked people are running all over the TV at all times of the day.

Guess its time we revert back to our Puritan days...

Moskie · 11-18-2004, 07:14 PM

this is getting out of hand. i'm sure i'm not the only one who's noticed that TV and radio broadcasters are seriously starting to fear the FCC, to the point where it's affecting our every day media exposure. Not a day goes by when I don't hear a DJ (including both local and syndicated) on my commute being forced to rephrase something due to the fear of being fined. And what these DJs are trying to say is something that I wouldn't even think twice about saying in my friends' company. Something like "He doesn't have the balls to do that." A phrase like that is absolutely part of the average american's vernacular, yet it can't be said on the radio, because "balls" is apparantly an indecent term.

Ab-fucking-surd.

I can agree that there should be some regulation, but it should only be applied to the stuff on the fringe of mainstream media. The FCC is completely missing that mark...

maleficent · 11-18-2004, 07:25 PM

ESPN had an interview with Terrell Owens tonite, towards the end of the interview, it was funny, but also truly sad that this is what it's come to, he made some comment about, who are they playing next Sunday, doesn't anyone want to talk about the game?

f6twister · 11-19-2004, 12:52 PM

I watched a couple of times waiting to see something offensive. I'm still waiting. I saw more skin on Elmer Fudd growing up than I did in that opening sequence. I'm also trying to figure out what was racially offensive about the ad.

The only thing offensive about that ad was Terrell Owens acting.

joeshoe · 11-19-2004, 04:43 PM

With cheerleaders in the game, the promo can't be considered more promiscuous. However, there is a different tone to each that may make the promo stand out more.

alansmithee · 11-19-2004, 06:48 PM

I personally agreed with Tony Dungy when I heard his statement. It was the whole tone of the ad I found racially offensive, like it was something straight out of Mandingo. And as for the content, I think it was the placement that was more problematic to most people. For an extreme example, it would be like slipping porno footage into a documentary about the auto industry. It is out of place, and not what people are tuning in to. It's not like a whole show where people know what to expect, it was during a totally unrelated TV broadcast. And as for cheerleaders, their outfits aren't designed to appeal on the same salacious level.

All that being said, I think it is being way overblown, and is a way for the various media outlets to bring attention to themselves. Mark Cuban (owner of the Mavs) pretty much hit it dead-on (Cuban also got in a little trouble with the NBA for saying the Kobe case was good for the league). This was a way for ABC to get cheap publicity and the network in general to try to push the boundary a bit.

denim · 11-20-2004, 05:12 AM

link

Quote:

Viacom won't pay for Super Bowl gaffe

11:46 PM CST on Friday, November 19, 2004

Bloomberg News

Viacom Inc. Co-President and CBS Chief Executive Leslie Moonves said the company won't pay a $550,000 fine levied by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission for a Super Bowl halftime broadcast in which singer Janet Jackson's breast was bared.

"We are not going to pay it," Moonves said during a speech at a "Future of Television" forum at New York University. "We will take it as high it can go legally."

At the Feb. 1 Super Bowl halftime show, watched by 90 million viewers on Viacom's CBS network, singer Justin Timberlake reached across Jackson's leather outfit and pulled away a chest covering, exposing her breast. The incident prompted a record half-million complaints to the FCC. CBS has said it didn't know in advance about plans to expose Jackson.

The fine imposed the maximum $27,500 penalty against each of the 20 CBS-owned stations that aired the Super Bowl. It was the largest fine ever imposed on TV stations for indecency. If the FCC stands by the penalty, CBS may appeal to a federal appeals court.

Moonves' comments came the same week of another possible indecency issue involving a football telecast.

The pregame skit on "Monday Night Football," broadcast by Walt Disney Co.'s ABC, showed actress Nicollette Sheridan of the network's "Desperate Housewives" embracing Philadelphia Eagles receiver Terrell Owens after dropping the towel she was wearing.

The National Football League and ABC apologized the next day, and the FCC said it is reviewing the spot.

"We're in a very scary climate, and it concerns me," Moonves said. "But I have not asked our people to change what we do."

pocon1 · 11-20-2004, 12:55 PM

I don't have a problem with most of what's shown on tv, as long as I have an idea beforehand. In the case of this, a highly charged sexual situation is paced right before a sporting event. There is not prior connection between the two, historically. What if next time, a player opens his locker and finds the team mascot with his head cut off in there? Let's bring in the CSI guys to solve the case before the game. See, it is not appropriate for the venue. If parents want their kids to not watch violent football games and instead watch desperate housewives, they can do that. Just don't mix the two together.

alicat · 11-21-2004, 09:02 PM

Hubby and I every evening watch "Around The Horn", "Pardon The Interruption" and "I, Max". They all have different thoughts on this, from "who cares" to "it's wrong". My feelings are along the lines of some of the coments on these shows, there is no way that ABC and the NFL didn't have any prior knowledge about that spot. I'm sorry, but when it comes to the networks and the kind of money they deal with, there is no possible way the right hand didn't know what the left was doing. Someone else stated, and I agree, that this was just a publicity ploy to promote two of ABC's interests.

I really don't care because far worse has been done and shown on network t.v. in the past. Ever since the Janet fiasco the networks and the FCC have turned into even more strict puritians. I just don't understand how they can now enforce rules banning things that they have been letting on air for years now. Hello hypocrites! Sometimes I wish we were more like some european countries, where nudity is considered natural and normal (which it is!)

The only thing about the "NFL Desperate Housewives" spot that bugged me was the "Desperate Housewives" part. Aren't there enough sheep that "flock" to soap's during the day? Do we really need a prime-time soap taking up space ala "Dallas" or "Dynasty"? Reality t.v. has just about run it's course, but I'd rather watch it anytime than the soapy "Housewives" (and I watched very little reality t.v. to begin with).

Ali

Ustwo · 11-21-2004, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Averett

So, why couldn't the mother and father in this story sit their children down adn EXPLAIN it to them? God forbid parents should have to actually communicate with their children and discuss potentially difficult things.

"Well Sally, it's an advertisement. ABC is trying to get people to watch the TV show Desperate Housewives. They used one of the actresses to come onto the player in the locker room. ABC figures by doing this they can reach people who wouldn't normally watch that TV show. And why did she take her clothes off? She most likely didn't, really. TV and movies typically do things like this, but the actors and actresses are very rarely naked. Besides, there is nothing at all wrong with the naked body. Now, lets discuss this later, football is on. And you know what that means. Half naked cheerleaders flaunting their breasts and butts. And bone crushing on the field hits"

Because you shouldn't have to do that while watching a football game.

Its the blindsided thing again. Its not that the add was pornographic, but that football is often a family time thing, and as such you shouldn't have to be explaining to your children why a naked woman was jumping into the players arms.

And ABC new full fucking well what they were doing. They figured any fine would be worth all this free plublicity.

Would the same add be ok durring an episode of sponge bob?

sonikeko · 11-21-2004, 11:32 PM

The real problem lies in the hands of good 'ol T.O. He was the one who taped for the scene, and if it was "such a disappointment" to the Eagles, shouldn't he be held accountable for allowing something like that to be aired? Personally, I didn't mind the ad at all. I thought to myself, Man, T.O. is a lucky SOB!

Supersonic · 11-22-2004, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_marq

American media has a very difficult time with self-regulation, they are like kids in an candy store and with out regulation they'll be constantly trying to one-up each other: "Topless Survivor" "Who wants to Marry a Topless Millionaire?" "Topless Fear Factor."

Movies have been self regulated for years, and have none of the problems you describe.

PS: I'd watch "Topless Survivor"

11-18-2004, 12:55 PM	#41 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	Art, I do agree with you that all avenues don't have to be the same... but what the broadcasters are now saying after the success of Sopranos, Sex in the City, The Sheild, Nip/Tuck that they cannot compete because the cable industry has a different standard and they are loosing market share. I do agree that they are losing market share due to programming alternatives, but then again, they do need to be wise about their programming which I think that Viacom has done with CBS - MTV - SHO, they have different standards, but still complement each other and have different avenues to bring the edgier content. ABC doesn't have anything in their portfolio that would allow them to do so. ABC also has a family image to maintain which is part of their core value system. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

11-18-2004, 02:38 PM	#46 (permalink)
troit Transfer Agent Location: NYC	Sure they can make us watch a million different viagra like commercials (trying explaining to your kid what a four hour hard on is..) but we can't see the small of a woman's back? C'mon now - this is america, the land of free speach. Go to any other country and naked people are running all over the TV at all times of the day. Guess its time we revert back to our Puritan days... __________________ I've yet to dephile myself...

11-18-2004, 07:14 PM	#47 (permalink)
Moskie Pure Chewing Satisfaction Location: can i use bbcode [i]here[/i]?	this is getting out of hand. i'm sure i'm not the only one who's noticed that TV and radio broadcasters are seriously starting to fear the FCC, to the point where it's affecting our every day media exposure. Not a day goes by when I don't hear a DJ (including both local and syndicated) on my commute being forced to rephrase something due to the fear of being fined. And what these DJs are trying to say is something that I wouldn't even think twice about saying in my friends' company. Something like "He doesn't have the balls to do that." A phrase like that is absolutely part of the average american's vernacular, yet it can't be said on the radio, because "balls" is apparantly an indecent term. Ab-fucking-surd. I can agree that there should be some regulation, but it should only be applied to the stuff on the fringe of mainstream media. The FCC is completely missing that mark... __________________ Greetings and salutations.

11-18-2004, 07:25 PM	#48 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	ESPN had an interview with Terrell Owens tonite, towards the end of the interview, it was funny, but also truly sad that this is what it's come to, he made some comment about, who are they playing next Sunday, doesn't anyone want to talk about the game? __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

11-19-2004, 12:52 PM	#49 (permalink)
f6twister Addict	I watched a couple of times waiting to see something offensive. I'm still waiting. I saw more skin on Elmer Fudd growing up than I did in that opening sequence. I'm also trying to figure out what was racially offensive about the ad. The only thing offensive about that ad was Terrell Owens acting. __________________ A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day. Calvin

11-18-2004, 01:29 PM	#44 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	I don't think its really that bad but there are a lot of people who think that way. Black man/white woman is definitely more taboo than white man/black woman

11-19-2004, 04:43 PM	#50 (permalink)
joeshoe Crazy Location: California	With cheerleaders in the game, the promo can't be considered more promiscuous. However, there is a different tone to each that may make the promo stand out more.

11-19-2004, 06:48 PM	#51 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	I personally agreed with Tony Dungy when I heard his statement. It was the whole tone of the ad I found racially offensive, like it was something straight out of Mandingo. And as for the content, I think it was the placement that was more problematic to most people. For an extreme example, it would be like slipping porno footage into a documentary about the auto industry. It is out of place, and not what people are tuning in to. It's not like a whole show where people know what to expect, it was during a totally unrelated TV broadcast. And as for cheerleaders, their outfits aren't designed to appeal on the same salacious level. All that being said, I think it is being way overblown, and is a way for the various media outlets to bring attention to themselves. Mark Cuban (owner of the Mavs) pretty much hit it dead-on (Cuban also got in a little trouble with the NBA for saying the Kobe case was good for the league). This was a way for ABC to get cheap publicity and the network in general to try to push the boundary a bit.

11-20-2004, 12:55 PM	#53 (permalink)
pocon1 Banned	I don't have a problem with most of what's shown on tv, as long as I have an idea beforehand. In the case of this, a highly charged sexual situation is paced right before a sporting event. There is not prior connection between the two, historically. What if next time, a player opens his locker and finds the team mascot with his head cut off in there? Let's bring in the CSI guys to solve the case before the game. See, it is not appropriate for the venue. If parents want their kids to not watch violent football games and instead watch desperate housewives, they can do that. Just don't mix the two together.

11-21-2004, 09:02 PM	#54 (permalink)
alicat Baffled Location: West Michigan	Hubby and I every evening watch "Around The Horn", "Pardon The Interruption" and "I, Max". They all have different thoughts on this, from "who cares" to "it's wrong". My feelings are along the lines of some of the coments on these shows, there is no way that ABC and the NFL didn't have any prior knowledge about that spot. I'm sorry, but when it comes to the networks and the kind of money they deal with, there is no possible way the right hand didn't know what the left was doing. Someone else stated, and I agree, that this was just a publicity ploy to promote two of ABC's interests. I really don't care because far worse has been done and shown on network t.v. in the past. Ever since the Janet fiasco the networks and the FCC have turned into even more strict puritians. I just don't understand how they can now enforce rules banning things that they have been letting on air for years now. Hello hypocrites! Sometimes I wish we were more like some european countries, where nudity is considered natural and normal (which it is!) The only thing about the "NFL Desperate Housewives" spot that bugged me was the "Desperate Housewives" part. Aren't there enough sheep that "flock" to soap's during the day? Do we really need a prime-time soap taking up space ala "Dallas" or "Dynasty"? Reality t.v. has just about run it's course, but I'd rather watch it anytime than the soapy "Housewives" (and I watched very little reality t.v. to begin with). Ali __________________ 'Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun, The frumious Bandersnatch!'--Jabberwocky, Lewis Carroll "You cannot do a kindness too soon because you never know how soon it will be too late."--Ralph Waldo Emerson

11-21-2004, 11:32 PM	#56 (permalink)
sonikeko What the HELL? Location: Bowling Green, OH	The real problem lies in the hands of good 'ol T.O. He was the one who taped for the scene, and if it was "such a disappointment" to the Eagles, shouldn't he be held accountable for allowing something like that to be aired? Personally, I didn't mind the ad at all. I thought to myself, Man, T.O. is a lucky SOB! __________________ "Adolescence is short, maturity is forever"