Super Bowl 2010: 'Commercials are the best part' refrain to come with caveat?
Did Super Bowl producers sell ad time to the anti-gay, anti-progressive Focus on the Family? Yes, say media reports:
What is also true — and I'm not kidding about this — is that during the telecast, mixed in among all the hilarious, watch-my-wife-Susie-blow-beer-out-of-her-nose commercials, there may be a 30-second, anti-abortion ad from our very own Focus on the Family.
The Focus ad supposedly features the story of University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother. Pam Tebow and her husband were Christian missionaries in the Philippines in the '80s, and during her pregnancy with Tim she developed amoebic dysentery. Doctors told her the strong drug they used to kill the infection had likely damaged the fetus, and they suggested an abortion. Pam refused. Tim was born healthy, won the Heisman Trophy in 2007, led Florida to the national championship a year ago and is a likely top draft pick in next spring's NFL draft.
Focus on ... the Super Bowl [Colorado Springs Independent]
For his part, Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger denies that Tim Tebow is going to be in an ad, but he does not deny that the ads themselves are happening. Which basically seems like confirmation.
So what do you think, folks? The networks have a history of denying ads from pro-acceptance organizations like the United Church of Christ. CBS is well within their right as a broadcast corporation to refuse ad space to an organization as controversial and personally hurtful as FOF. But instead, they seem to have sold our most financed foe the ad space. If confirmed, will this change your big game plans? Or do you respect their right to have a slot, even if you find the ads even more grating than the ones where the parents want to shtup because their boner pills just took affect, but are interrupted by their college-aged daughter's surprise return home?
And if you do think the ads are kosher, what should we do to counter it? Should we get progressive groups to go on the Bowl and respond to Focus' mission, or in this day and age is it a wiser bet to make an economical web spot that will get mucho news attention in connection with FOF's own co$tly commercial? Or do we do little to nothing and trust that the public will find the ad misplaced and inappropriate, coming as it surely will in between beer commercials featuring bikini-clad women?
What's the best play, my dear tight ends?
**Note: We have a message into Schneeberger for further comment. We'll let you know.
**UPDATE: Schneeberger gave us a "no comment."
Actually, I'd have no problem with this if they didn't advocate for any change in abortion's status.
In a perfect world they should have every right to present their opinion, and that's all it is is an opinion, that they think abortion is wrong and people should not have them. And in that same perfect world pro-abortion groups should present their opinion that they think that abortion is one of the valid choices when faced with pregnancy.
It's where FOF goes overboard and tries to get the full force of law behind their opinion that the problem lies.
Posted by: Necktie Knot | Dec 30, 2009 10:39:54 AM
I don't have a uterus, so I don't have an opinion.
Posted by: Mykelb | Dec 30, 2009 11:56:09 AM
Aren't Super Bowl ads extremely expensive? Let them buy the ad space, it'll cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars and it probably won't change anything. Political ads rarely do.
Posted by: John | Dec 30, 2009 11:56:23 AM
I'm just glad that FoF is wasting so much money on an ad that will run once. Sucks for all the staff they laid off this year, though.
As for response, I'm not sure one is needed. Just hold out hope that their ad is followed by a boner pill ad.
Posted by: Matt Algren | Dec 30, 2009 12:05:06 PM
I'd boycott the Super Bowl, but I never watch it anyway. Let them waste their money. It's money that can't be used against us later.
Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Dec 30, 2009 12:42:19 PM
Wouldn't CBS PR be the more appropriate contact?
Posted by: Dave | Dec 30, 2009 5:12:30 PM
I agree with most of the other comments, I'd rather they spend their money on this rather than on anti gay activities. And I don't really disagree with the message, even though I'm pro choice, I think that choosing to give your child a chance at life is usually the better choice.
Posted by: Ken | Dec 30, 2009 5:55:08 PM
The Kkkristian bigots are always whining about gays being visible, while at the same time using every opportunity to impose their religion on other people. In the SEC championship game Tebow had patches under his eyes with the number of some bible verse.
After Alabama won the game, shirts were created with a picture of Tebow and the message "Tebow cried for our sins", with eye patches that had the "verse" number - "Bama" and "32:13" (the game score). Hilarious.
Posted by: scioto | Jan 1, 2010 2:34:31 PM
I think that almost every woman, throughout history, who has ever been faced with making a decision about abortion has found it to be an incredibly difficult one. Even in cases of abuse. But, most especially in cases like the Tebow one. I fully expect that the lying liars will attempt to paint all abortions as "morally" evil. And would also expect that they will decry the "activist" judges (even though Row v Wade was decided by a 7-2 margin). And even that they hope with such an ad to further solidify their "moral" political power grab. But even given all of that, I think that it will be fortunate for everyone who has felt the scorn from the radicals in the religious right, if they do (in earnest) begin to piss money down that drain.
It isn't like they are issuing some "gotcha" / checkmate / discussion ending brilliance (even though the lying liars might be deluded enough to think that they are). The ad would merely be repetition (rehashing) of widely experienced emotions. Nothing that a dozen sub-B movies on Lifetime haven't beaten to death for years.
But the thing that we absolutely should be hauling up the flag post is that, while the lying liar, hatemongers have been very effectively targeting LGBTs for the last decade-plus, their real aim is to be as effective at eliminating rights from ALL of their unilaterally targeted enemies. When voters in California passed Prop H8, and to a slightly lesser extent, the popular vote to eliminate marriage equality in Maine, that was much less of an attack on the LGBT community, as it was (and now is becoming much more evident) a shot across the bow of every minority group that the radical religiots hate. And, that's a fact that we seem reticent to exploit.
That they came for our rights yesterday, and were largely successful, just fuels the vicious-hate-machine as they turn their sights toward any (and every) other group that they love to hate. And, those groups are many, and mostly duped into believing that a vote against marriage equality didn't (and wouldn't) affect them. A fallacy that we should probably be shedding some light onto.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Jan 2, 2010 12:58:06 PM
Does anybody out there know who to contact in regard to this debacle. I would really like to give the people responsible for approving the airing of such an inappropriate and politically-charged ad a piece of my mind.
Posted by: J Ro | Jan 17, 2010 5:46:10 PM
@ Dick Mills
Right on, brother!
Posted by: J Ro | Jan 17, 2010 5:47:40 PMcomments powered by Disqus