Tim Tebow and Mother Super Bowl Ad
 

First, let me start by saying I am pro choice always have been. I do believe the father should legally have some say though (that's just based on personal experience).

That said, the rumors, and they are just rumors as the ad has yet to be seen by the public, are that this ad will have a pro-life/anti-abortion message.

SO WHAT? CBS states it was tastefully done and the pro-choice people coul;d have made a similar ad if it were tastefully done. Fair enough, I think.

However, there are the militant pro-chopicers that are demanding CBS not air it. I find this pathetic, in that CBS gave them a chance and they found excuses not to produce a commercial on their own. I find it pathetic that agin, people would rather censor voices, go to court or try to boycott a company because of a disagreeing statement.

This is not how to win people over to your side of an issue. This only shows that those people would rather have government dictate what we can say and can't, that only their views are right and fuck anyone else and they do not have enough conviction in their own view to stand up and produce their own ad.

It is sad, disgusting and totally unfathomable that these people are so tunnel visioned in their views they can't allow the other side a chance to speak.

One the one hand, Tebow et al have every right to create this ad and purchase air time from CBS.

On the other, I think CBS should have some discretion and not sell ANY air time to to ANY political or social campaign during the Super Bowl. It's a football game....air all the ads for Budweiser and Ford F150's you want. I think this type of "controversy" only detracts from the game.

Yeah I support their right to make the commercial and air it but I just don't want politics during the Superbowl commercials to become a norm.

If the pro-lifers are serious about ending or reducing abortion they should try and get free health care for pregnant women and create programs that make adoption free (or close to it). Right now it can cost up to $30,000 to adopt in the US. That is a pretty hefty fee.

I want bouncing titties selling me beer and domain hosting services, maybe a monkey riding a skateboard hawking Doritos. I just look at it as a buzzkill.

for once, we agree

We agree on far more than you think, I'll bet. Rhetorically speaking, if we had our conversations around beers rather than computer screens, you would find us not that different. This environment is poisonous, which is why I spend less and less time here (Tilted Politics).

Some find Tim Tebow to be too "holier than thou" and somehow, too perfect in all of his accomplishments throughout his college career. They now have just another excuse to want to hate on the man, as if they really needed it. There are some really heated debates that Tebow will fail in the NFL because he's not prototypical, but much too versatile to be assessed correctly as a quarterback (what?).

But that's not the isue at hand here. It's really coincidental that the first two viewpoints in this thread are virtually the "pro and con" sides of the argument to this discussion.

• The Super Bowl can show all the truck, beer and erectile dysfunction commercials we guys like, but bringing in politics? What kind of joke is this?
  
• Super Bowl Sunday is one of the most premier (if not the absolute pinnacle) of advertising real estate there is, so if there are those willing to pay the premium, then we will comply and allow them the air time. Besides, how harmful can the message be? Would it kill our audience to be afforded the opportunity to be educated?

I say no one has a right to be upset about this very miniscule piece of news. It's a commercial. Sure, during the Super Bowl, but if that is where the biggest audience is, and you have the purchasing power to afford such a stage, then it makes sense to be able to maximize your message's reach. if it upsets you, I hear that many TV sets nowadays come with a remote control; is it beyond yourself to change the channel instead of bashing Tim Tebow and his religious (political) beliefs?

I'll say I respect Tim Tebow, and I do know he is a very religious and faithful sort of athlete. I was blown away when I heard last night the very reason he wante to do this commercial was to say 'Hey, I was supposed to be aborted. My mother was confused and distraught at the time, but when she struggled, she eventually turned to her faith and decided to keep me. Please, think of the future you hold in your hands.' (this is my paraphrasing of what the ad's message may sound like in Tim Tebow's voice) :surprised:

the way i figure it, if you are anti-choice and so oppose abortion the most effective thing you can do is not have one.
past that, i really cannot imagine caring that you or anyone else thinks about it.
and i can imagine even less caring what a college football player thinks about abortion.
if there's someone who wants to put up the money to buy the kid's advert superbowl air time, then fine: but the fact remains that he's a college football player.

are you going to change your views about something as personal as whether or not to bring a pregnancy to term based on what some college football player tells you in an advert broadcast during a bloated and usually uninteresting sporting ritual?


personally, i get way more fed up with the national anthem business, which seems an advertisement for reactionary politics that no-one even has to fucking pay for.
what is the point of playing the national anthem before sporting events anyway?

Do they have the right to do the ad? Sure. Does CBS have the right to air it? Sure.


But personally, I find it fucking hypocritical of CBS, after years of a "no advocacy on the Super Bowl" position, to do this. Just as a reminder, they've blocked ads from moveon.org and a liberal church supporting gay rights in the past.


Oh, and I've yet to see anyone petitioning the government to stop this ad from being aired, so this whole "censor voices" thing is nonsense. CBS has the right to show the ads they want, and "militant pro choicers" have the right to criticize CBS for it however they want. Freedom of speech does not protect one from criticism.

This phenomenon of people getting upset at other people for getting upset never ceases to make me chuckle.

Of course pro-choice groups are going to complain about something like this-- it's in their mission statement to complain about things like this. Just like anti abortion groups would complain if a pro choice group aired a commercial espousing a pro choice message. It isn't censorship, it's actually just another example of competition in the marketplace of ideas (I can't believe I actually just wrote that phrase).

As a person who is personally pro-life, and politically pro-choice - I fail to understand why anyone "pro-choice" would be upset by this. This commercial is little more than, "Hey, I had a choice whether to abort or keep. I kept him and he throws a ball really far." The only response anyone who is politically pro-choice need give is, "Whew, good thing you had the freedom to make that choice, huh? Now back to the titties selling beer."

I'm WIllravel, and I approve this message.

There's nothing at all in the Bible about abortion, and abortion is legal in the US. Make all the commercials you want.

A heavy-handed moral message broadcast during a fervently watched sporting event.

There's something tragically American about that.

I don't see a problem with airing the ad, and I think it's essential to the pro-choicers to criticize it. What is their mission otherwise?

Again, why criticize it? It proves the point that choice is the way to go in society. "You had a choice and you made the right one for you."

Well, you are discussing strategy, not principle.

I don't care the commercial is aired, though I think that its premise is ridiculous. Jeffrey Dahmer's mom chose life too.

Perhaps I am missing something, but isn't the principle of pro-choice...choice? What principle are you referring to? (Read my very first post so you get where I'm coming from, though.)

so i think the thread thus far has shown a remarkably consistent who cares response to this advert rumor.
so far in response to this advertisement for an advertisement that's being fobbed off as a rumor, i've seen one of those facebook group logo things floating about and nothing else.

so it seems to me that what we have here is yet another conservative-as-victim thread, yes?

So you would say the commercial is going to be pro-choice?

Yeah I have to agree with everyone here, they paid for the add let them say what they want. If pro-choice groups are bothered that much by the add, raise some money, buy some space and put out a counter add.

I'm pro choice all the way but getting upset over something like this is just ridiculous.

No. The conservatives behind this got a spokesperson fitting their theme, got the ad made, got the money to air the ad, got the network to approve it, and it is going to air. If that is being a victim...we should all be victims. Real victims are like the liberals supporting Obama's health care agenda, they have the President, super majority, etc, and complain about not getting Republican support.:rolleyes:

I don't want an ad regarding abortion during the Super Bowl unless it is funny. Can't we get away from the politics for a few hours and watch a game?

How many Super Bowl parties will this ruin once others know how their friends feel about this issue? How many women and kids will live in poverty and strife from having a baby they aren't able to take care of because they think conservative society will shove a lot of guilt at them.

On a side note, Who do you have to elect in this country to make it a progressive liberal state? I would much rather see a Victoria Secret ad with a wardrobe malfunction or a Nike ad with a female streaker at the game.

The thing is, although abortion is often discussed, it's one of those issues that really only about 20% of the population really, really care about - the 10% who are rabid pro-choicers who think terminating anytime before delivery is OK and the 10% who are rabid anti-abortion who "spilling their seed upon the earth" is akin to murder. For everyone else, the debate is something we may have an opinion on, but it tends not to be something we are really all that wound up about.

I didn't say petitioning the government, I said petitioning and threatening to boycott CBS.

The radio station I listened to that had someone affiliated with the ad said that there is a group out there trying to get a court order AND the FCC to halt the ad from being aired.

That is what I'm upset over and what I am wanting to discuss.

It's as I keep stating, why do certain groups feel they should go to court/the FCC to stop someone else's freedoms?

I'm sure if it were a pro-choice commercial (and how exactly do you in an ad tastefully say "I killed my baby"?) the anti-abortion crowd would be trying the courts and boycotts also.

Our society is built up around freedom of speech. You can turn the channel, mute the commercial, go to the bathroom... whatever, you do not have to watch it. You do not have to agree with what is said... but why must certain people try to get government (and a court/FCC order to desist/ an injunction to stop the ad, etc) is using the government to take away freedom of speech.

To me this issue is not about pro life/choice it is about freedom of speech and the right to produce an ad that allows your views to be heard. Again, for the life of me, I do not understand why people go to the courts or any governmental agency to silence someone else's views.

Shouldn't we be worried about a lot more important things like A FUCKING WAR.... Unemployment, the economy... etc than to try to stop an ad?

Yeah, (fucking) war, unemployment, the economy, and the country's gearing up for a fucking game and the mass commercialization that goes along with it.

It's all bread & circuses, my friend.

Well, I've not seen the script so I can't say definitively. If she says, "I had a choice and I made this one, but I think our politicians should change the current law so that you can't have the choice that I did." - well, that would definitely be a pro-life political message. If she says, "I had a choice and I made this one, always remember you have a choice and you can choose life." Well, I would view that as a pro-choice commercial. It encourages people to "choose life", but it still emphasizes that there is a choice. In my opinion, any offense to that message starts blurring one's position between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion".

I really don't have anything else to offer. I still think it's going to be a buzzkill.

pan

for someone who claims to be pro-choice, you have an awfully strange interpretation of what pro-choice means. "I killed my baby"? Really?

Objectively speaking, isn't that what you've done?

it's a false dichotomy. One can be anti-abortion but pro-choice. One doesn't define one's self as pro-choice by having an abortion. In fact, the vast, vast majority of pro-choice supporters haven't had an abortion (and would never have one)

"objectively speaking?"

what the hell are you talking about?

I think "objectively speaking" means "scientifically speaking"...or, at a stretch, "philosophically speaking"...but it still doesn't make any sense.

So exactly what would the pro-choicers say. I tend to like what Cimmaron said:

That would actually in my mind be a pro-choice commercial. BUT if that is what is being aired and those militant groups are fighting it... then what exactly would their commercial say?

The very fact that they would rather find courts to stop the ad or the FCC or boycott CBS even though CBS gave them the chance to air an ad that was tastefully done, shows there is a problem.

So, let's see they can't present an ad that shows a lady who is maybe in her 30's and says.... "I did something when I was 16, I was not prepared for it and I had a choice, my baby would have been born a drug addict and in serious pain from my lifestyle at the time. My child would never have had a chance to live the life that I believe everyone should be able to. I stand by my choice and am grateful that I had one."

Or something similar.... But it still comes down to "I killed my baby." Which I may be pro-choice but I still acknowledge that it abortion is killing a living thing... is an embryo human yet with a soul??? don't know, but I would rather see clinics that are legal and clean than hear how ladies have to go to chop shops in some alley.

I had an inkling this entire thread premise was a back-door, sideways attempt,
at having another abortion debate.

Now I am certain.

first off, this entire thread is a commercial for a commercial.

i cannot imagine anyone whose opinions interest me less than a college quarterback. unless we're talking about football. and who knows maybe we'll be treated to a riot of football metaphors:

In the great game of life dontcha think it's better to accept the consequences of passing the ball from one person to another I mean abortion is like someone reaching in and stealing the football in the middle of a game this here is my mom and she didn't let anyone take the ball in the middle of my reproductive football game and so here I stand on the 50 yardline of life somewhere between being a college football quarterback and being a has-been college football quarterback and in order to establish my merchandising bona-fides for corporate entitites the boards of which swing to the reactionary here I am here, bare-naked, conservative shill-of-the-future even if my professional career goes from non-existent to disappointment with no intervening period, here I am on the 50 yard-line of my own personal football game of life thinking Praise Jesus that my mom---that's her over there you know the only other person standing here on this giant metaphor, the one with the bouffant that's her---aren't you glad that she didn't let some bad man steal the football early on in the game, that she decided to man or wo-man up and even if the football that produced me was not the result of a called play and even if it was an interception, well no matter what it's better that she ran the football back than it woulda been had she let some bad man just take the football and end the game why had that happened I wouldn't be standing here now on the 50 yard line of my own personal football game and that's why I am coming to you today to say that life and football are the same so that when I a college football player tell you don't let a bad man steal the football well, you know that I know what I'm talking about because....well...I'm a college fooball player and this......well, this is a football field and that......well, that is my mom.
I'm Tim Tebow and abortion is bad.
Ask my mom.

Honest to God, it isn't.

I'm just pissed that some people had the oppurtunity to produce their own ad and instead decided to try to have a court/the FCC or blackmail CBS into not allowing someone their right to expression and to voice their opinion.

IF this were about any other subject and there was a group that was doing that, I'd feel exactly the same and would have posted.

The OP was never intended in ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM to be about abortion. It may morph into that but hopefully people can try to remain on subject.

IF it's easier to.... pretend it's about one group saying they had a choice and preferred drinking from plastic bottles, while the aluminum can people are looking to silence that ad in any way they can, even though they had an opportunity to make an ad stating their viewpoint.

Well, now that corporations are considered a person,
I might reconsider my stance on capital punishment.

I'm not altogether certain, that this is a threadjack.

Thank you for making me laugh today.

I chose Pub DIscussion, because I wanted to keep it somewhat light, where people can just discuss how they feel and what they think and you have done that.

We're all just friends sittin at a table discussing this over a drink... whatever your poison is... mine is Diet Dr Pepper or Pepsi Max.

1. Not all groups have $3 million dollars to throw away on a counter-ad that the vast majority won't be interested in during a sporting event that he isn't in. Had Florida been playing in the BCS and he was playing, I would say that is OK. But, this ad will do nothing constructive to the country right now and just raise another divisive issue that isn't very important to most people's lives.

2. I can't "turn the channel, mute the commercial, go to the bathroom... whatever". I will be watching it with conservatives, and I don't want to rock that boat. I don't want to see political commercials during the Super Bowl from any group.

3. There are many reasons why I think abortion would be the smart thing to do in lots of situations, the current system is something the vast majority can live with.

4. You have the freedom of speech, but a woman doesn't have the freedom to choose what to do with her body?

If I had the money for a super-bowl commercial/rant/stance/

It would be a difficult choice.

Which is more evil? High fructose corn syrup...or trans fats?

You know, it's this kind of shit that has me fleeing these discussions. "What the hell..." is that really necessary? I have been as polite as possible in this, my first discussion here in quite a while. As usual, I get attacked by the usual suspects.

Objectively:

Definition: impartially
Synonyms: considerately, detachedly, disinterestedly, dispassionately, equitably, evenhandedly, indifferently, justly, neutrally, on the up and up, open-mindedly, soberly, squarely, with an open mind, with impartiality, with objectivity, without favor, without prejudice

By having an abortion you are killing your baby. It's simply a matter of fact. Whether that is a "murder" or a "necessary termination of life" is not for me to decide, since it is unique to each instance. Hence, I am speaking objectively.

I'm done with this thread, guys. There's nothing else to add.

This thread isn't a thinly veiled attempt to have an abortion debate.

It's a thinly veiled rant by pan about people going about things differently than he'd like them to

They have the money to hire lawyers and fight it in court. I do not think it is a matter of "can they afford it".

I do agree, many probably will not care or pay attention to the ad.

Go to the bathroom. But yes, I don't want to see political ads in many places... and this may not be. The point is it is going to air and there are people who would rather fight someone's right to air their view than to present an opposing view with the same audience watching.

I respect that.

She does and rightfully so. Again, my belief is the father should be able to have some legal say.

And if this ad simply says "I made the right choice because I allowed my faith to help me".... how is that truly anti-choice? Maybe a pro-life message but it doesn't say there should be no choice.

---------- Post added at 01:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:49 PM ----------

Pretty much. And people have the right to participate and state their views and we can maybe have a decent talk or people can choose to go to a different thread.

Pan,

Who, exactly, is trying to sue or have the courts block the ads?

Because I've seen the reactions by planned parenthood, NARAL and so on and none mention the FCC.

In any case, there is no censorship here.

You are simply mistaking free speech with the notion that somehow people should be free from criticism.

So the people who disagree with the ad shouldn't be allowed to express their disagreement? They shouldn't be able to use that as a factor of whether or not they want to watch CBS?

Everyone has the right to criticize CBS as loudly and as publicly as they want, to boycott CBS for as long as they want, and to send as many letters as they want. And you are free to criticize the groups that do so. But the notion that Tebow or CBS is having their free speech rights somehow threatened is nonsense.

These threads may get pointless in general, but it's doubly pointless to make these sorts of statements that have no semblance of acknowledging or understanding the basic arguments behind anti-abortion viewpoints. That's not the most effective thing you can do. OF COURSE it's not. That inevitable joke comparison of "don't like rape, don't rape" sure sounds silly, but it's given unlikely viability thanks to the authentic obtuseness of "don't like abortion, don't have one".

I don't want to hear any athletes, famous persons, or any other well known people telling me what their opinions are. They should know that "normal" people are highly affected (positive and negative) by what they say and do. If they do feel the need to force what they feel on me, then at least put it on at the appropriate time, aka: not the Super Bowl.

I am pro choice, so I don't agree with what Tebow is saying, but even if there was a pro choice commercial I wouldn't support it. When I watch the Super Bowl I want to see funny, clever commercials. I don't want it to be turned into some big propoganda fest.

actually, fta, there's nothing to acknowledge about the core beliefs of anti-choice people. i don't mind what they believe and don't particularly care what these folk do. there's a differend about the central arguments that the anti-choice people will not and cannot acknowledge and there's a considerable degree of obtuseness on their part as well, as demonstrated by your post. so the way i see it, given that there's little chance the anti-choice crowd is going to convince people in the pro-choice crowd that the anti-choice crowd should control the arguments on this matter then it really is the case that the most effective thing they can do to implement their position is to not have abortions.

of course they're free to argue their positions, but not to impose their arguments on others. it's just like that. you know, a differend.

o and your analogy's false.

That is a beautiful statement. Sums it all up for me.

You're going to elaborate on what that 'obtuseness' is, right? You're not just making it up, right?

There's this thing called 'government' that people, right or wrong, routinely use to impose their arguments on others. And the anti-choice side once was indeed free to impose its arguments on others using this thing. So what's you're point - that they probably can't? Or that they shouldn't?

If the latter, well, it's harder to consider such advice from someone whose words would indicate that they don't understand - or care to understand - the very first thing about the anti-choice mindset.

O no it isn't. As long as you're pretending that the 'murder' premise doesn't exist, you're going to be talking to yourself or the choir. Which is fine, I suppose, if not a little boring and self-indulgent. But no pro-lifer's going to give a damn what you say when you throw out something as silly - given their premises - as "you guys should just abstain from murder if you hate it so much!"

---------- Post added at 08:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 AM ----------

For the record, yeah, this is one of those really dumb pro-life arguments.

Given that we haven't yet achieved crystal ball technology, either side using this argument is dumb.

fta:

in this thread, we're talking about tim fucking tebow. about an imaginary movement to suppress an imaginary commercial featuring a college football player with little to no chance of making it in the nfl trying to get some merchandising credibility as he moves from college quarterback to has-been college quarterback. the anti-choice stuff is just a merchandising hook.
but you want to have a serious discussion about abortion.
in *this* context.

why i should take you or your arguments seriously? you obviously have no clue about how to evaluate context, how to figure out what contexts are and are not appropriate for a serious discussion.

i'll make it simple for you:

if you want a debate about these questions, start another thread.
maybe i'll play along.

Then why post at all. Your post about how this is all beneath you or whatever is nothing more than flaming, trying to start something. Don't like the thread don't post.

Do you know I get PM's here and emails from people that appreciate my trying to start decent threads and the people like you who chase them off?

Let's face it TFP is NOTHING like it use to be and part of that is because posts like yours have become the norm.

How many threads get started now in Politics?

How many NEW or even old posters that were chased away start threads or post now.

Pan.....dipping provided a reasonable. respectful response to your OP.

For the record, I agree with him 100%.

Will you address it or ignore it?

In another discussion, I provided a reasonable and respectful response to your proposed "economic plan" (link)....and you ignored it.

Discussions require more than an initial emotional post...they require a willingness to respond when challenged in a respectful manner...and honestly,, IMO, more often than not, you dont demonstrate that willingness.

And this is not a personal attack and I hope you wont take it as such.

You are correct, I stand corrected and apologize for not researching to see if what I heard was correct.

The night I wrote this, as I stated I had heard it on a Cleveland AM radio show and they were discussing that there were lawsuits and a group to get the FCC to stop the ad.

However, I have been searching to find articles stating such and cannot find them. I searched based on the above quoted post asking me for a source.

I do believe it is one's absolute right to boycott, petition and speak out against the ad if they see fit.

My sole argument was based on the fact that there were lawsuits and FCC petitions.

I do stand by my argument that these people had every opportunity to come up with an ad of their own but saw fit not to.

If someone can find an article stating there is pending litigation or FCC petitions to withhold the ad, I would appreciate seeing them.

Speaking for myself (and not dipping) thank you for a respectful acknowledgment. :thumbsup:

Now. on to this:
Indulge me for a minute while I point to another recent discussion....State of the Union Speech Didnt Include This..."

The OP was pointed out to be factually incorrect...and yet, conservatives and/or Obama bashers here will not only not acknowledge that fact, but find a need to further deflect from the misrepresentation by new misrepresentations (but...how about Obama's position on off-shore drilling....or an energy policy based on tire pressure - wtf)

Perhaps that explains some of the frustrations. Please, dont put it all on one side.

/end threadjack.

Well...

Given your pattern in this thread of making such brutal-sounding accusations with no elaboration or substantiation forthcoming and your apparent disinterest in engaging the other side in any sort of honest way...

No reason. My memory inevitably will fail me here, but for now I'll stop wasting my time.

You do know that Cleveland AM radio is the birthplace of shockjockism? WERE lead the way in groundless speculation about their opponents lesbianism, Satanism, and how black people are the devil?

If you hear it on Cleveland AM radio, wash your ears out with a chimney broom.

CBS sold time to Focus on the Family.

FOCUS ON THE FAMILY.

You know who they are, don't you? I'm just asking. I want to make sure.

A few years back they REFUSED to sell time to MOVEON.ORG.

MOVEON DOT EFFING ORG.

You also know who they are, right? The radicals who suggested se3nding rocks to congress to symbolize we don't care about a long investigation into Clinton's sex life. In fact, they initially suggested censure, and move on. Congress didn't even do that. They were more right wing than congress.

If you want to defend FOCUS ON THE FAMILY, I suggest you look at some of Dr. James Dobson's transcripts regarding race, sexuality, spirituality, and brotherhood.

-Dobson

Send rocks to congress - moveon.org

- Dobson

Send rocks to congress - moveon.org

- Dobson, as teen pregnancy skyrockets

Send rocks to congress - moveon.org


Pick your allies.

So CBS rejected this ad:


Is CBS playing politics with which commercials they accept and deny?

Allowing a message relating the choice to not abort a well-adjusted son is far easier than having to defend a broadcast that supports homosexuality.

These are a few of the ads CBS has rejected in the past on grounds of "advocacy:"

And now they're James Dobson's bitch. What's your point? They used to have ethics, and now they bend over to take it up the ass for FOTF. A tough economy increases the whores.

After all of the hub-bub, the commercial is completely uncontroversial

Watch "Tim Tebow's 'Controversial' Super Bowl Ad" Video at mediaite

There was more controversy over what everyone thought than what was. This wasn't anything but a mom praising her son, no message whatsoever except a website to learn more.... It wasn't badly done, the first one.

The second however, where he tackles her and she bounces back saying "You aren't nearly as tough as I am". I can se getting complaints from women's groups about the "Violence". That one may have pushed a little too far but in a totally different direction and one probably no one expected.

Yeah, it'd be way more controversial if Tebow had two moms.

Tebow's Focus on the Family ad could change future Super Bowls - Shutdown Corner - NFL Blog - Yahoo! Sports

I also worry more about the precident that this sets than just this ad. I want funny, new commercials (with no hamsters or slapping & punching) in them. I think the Green Police ad was really bad as well and should have been pulled by CBS or at least redone. It's one thing going after old lightbulbs instead of old cars when they are selling a new 'non-hybrid/non-electric' car.

After watching both of Tebow's ads, I wouldn't know that it was a anti-abortion or pro adoption ad if I hadn't heard about it before. I just wish it would have been kept to the pre or postgame slots.

To say this ad is uncontroversial is to miss the point entirely.

Who cares about the abortion issues... this was an ad for Focus on the Family. FOTF is an odious organization.

As I see it, CBS should stay away from these sorts of things. However, if CBS is going to start accepting advocacy ads then they need to let other organizations, organizations that it's board of directors, management and, most importantly, certain portions of the public, will not like. IF they are going to go down they route they need a very clear set of guidelines dictating what is needed to be acceptable (i.e. so when they reject something they can point to the policy -- clarity will be difficult to achieve but it will be essential once you go down this path). Otherwise, yes, the FCC should be called into play.

Why should the FCC be called into play? The airwaves are Public. CBS, and organizations like them, license these rights from the people (notice I did not say, purchase or buy... a license implies that their use of the airwaves is at the people's pleasure). As such they should not be allowed to use these airwaves as a bully pulpit or a place to air skewed political messages, etc. The people should hold these licensees to account and the proper venue for that accounting is (or should be) the FCC.

I am not clear on US law but if laws don't exist to create a balance in paid advocacy ads, there should be.

first off this thread is a commercial for the commercial. chumps.

charlatan states the problem this would have raised had it aired.
i watched the game...did this air? i didn't see it. and thank to this commercial for the commercial, i was looking....

Tese guys have been brilliant marketeers.

For the price of a superbowl ad, they got the entire English speaking world discussing what MIGHT be in their ad for two weeks without needing to do anything.

They probably counted on the worst excesses of the most extreme pro-choice comentators vilifying FOTF and their inoffensive advert without having seen it, and that's what they got.

All they have to do now is sit back and gently remind all the centre right "don't know's" that the suposed pro-choice liberals wouldn't even let a pro-ball player say how great his mom was on superbowl sunday.

It wasn't about the ad, it was about the media hype in advance of the ad.

That's viral marketing at its most devious. And it worked.

Yes, it aired.