CBS stands for ‘Christian Broadcasting System’
|
A post by "S-Dott " To see more posts click here |
Struggling to bring in ad revenue for Superbowl XLIV, CBS has been gutting its rates in an effort to fill all the available slots set to air. Recently, a bit of a ruckus was raised when Tim Tebow agreed to appear in an anti-choice ad sponsored by the conservative group ‘Focus on Family’. Frankly I don’t understand why anybody made much of a stink about it, Tebow is certainly entitled to participate in whatever group/organization he wishes and is more than capable of making his own decisions. What does concern me though is that CBS, having granted ad time for this partic ular advocacy group, rejected a humor ad by the gay dating website ManCrunch.com.
Now as a straight guy, I have to say that I think showing a commercial for a gay dating site is actually less gayer (and I don’t mean that derogatively) than showing a dozen erectile dysfunction ads over the course of a football game, so I don’t really see how this is anything less than a discriminatory practice on the part of CBS. They’ve made it clear that because times are tough, they need to relax restrictions on ‘controversial’ ads for the sake of maintaining revenue, yet they’ve clearly drawn a line in the sand with what the limits to what they consider to be ‘controversial’.
As is typically the case with anything that is arbitrarily determined, CBS is showing a bias in its decision to air the Tebow ad and rejecting the dating ad. Both ads are obviously going to ruffle feathers, but the network has decided to not accept the ad from ManCrunch despite the fact that the ad would bring in the same kind of revenue that CBS would receive from Focus on Family. Why can’t CBS let both ads air? CBS is in the business of telecommunications, not policy making. By letting both ads air, Focus on Family would be happy, ManCrunch would be happy, and CBS would be happy since it’d be raking in the dough from both groups.
Furthermore, isn’t CBS part of the media? And isn’t all media inherently liberal? So much for that theory, and so much for the first amendment – udothedishes . . .
Not agreeing/disagreeing with what you say, just wanted to post a link of an opinion piece that I thought hit right to the heart:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102067.html
I will say this, CBS has broadcast rights and can run any ad they want to run. I’m not sayin it’s right, but that’s the way it is. If NBC decided to run a gay site ad and not the Tim Tebow ad, we’d be having the same conversation, but in this case, it’s not equal opportunity because it doesn’t have to be. CBS can pick and choose any ads they want to run, that’s not a threat on Mancrunch’s first amendment, it’s economics.
if it were economics, then wouldn’t CBS want to run both ads?
no, they obviously feel like the tebow ad, along with im sure a ton of pepsi, coke, bud light and godaddy commercials are helping their bottomline more than mancrunch will. they’re into accepting the masses and if that means alienating a minority, then so be it – again, not saying it’s right, it’s just CBS’s choice. they are looking to gain viewership and keep people interested in their broadcasts – they are not taking a stand on an issue, they are working for the dollar!
If CBS were to run the Mancrush ad and not only be the most watched channel on basic cable, but also the gay-lesbian friendly network, that would sure help their bottom line more than another godaddy ad, which are thoughtless and nonsensical… Especially, if let’s say they made Mancrush/crunch (whatever) pay double for the time.
The problem is not necessarily running the Tebow ad (I hate the idea of it because anti-choicers really fry my cornbread, but that’s another story), rather than CBS has repeatedly denied Superbowl ad space to a number of organizations they deemed “too controversial” and to ads they find too political. This one seems to blow that past “logic” out of the water. So now what? Personally, I’d rather see ManCrunch than Tebow’s “my mom chose life” junk, but if you’re gonna show one, show both!
Your logic is that christians and gay people are two groups of people so by agreeing to both commercials, they would double their viewers. That could be and I don’t want to speculate too much, but I still think CBS has the dollar on their mind more than the issues. The issues they “broadcast” will help their bottom line, it’s not as if CBS is taking the stand “we’re pro-life” to piss people off. There are a lot of commercials submitted for CBS and yes, they could help their bottom line if they aired Mancrunch and made Mancrunch pay double – double millions is a lot of millions and Mancrunch may not even be able to pay. We’re involved in a debate right now that no of us have ever had interest in or paid attention to, but now we do because of a “fairness” issue? Like I said originally, CBS can pick the ads they want to run and my belief is that their decision is based on $$$ not changing lives to promote a christian message. I respect the views you all have.
what if they are going to surprise everyone and the T-Bow Commercial is both an Ad spot for Pro-Life, and Tebow comes out of the closet? That wouldn’t surprise me at all. If he’s so into his religion it’s only natural that he’d start to like boys right?
jk…
I have a problem with your statement that the Tebow ad is anti-choice. A choice at least as it pertains to this situation involves deciding between more than one option. Tebow’s ad is simply an explanation of what can happen when one of the choices is made. I personally don’t think anyone should be telling a woman what to do with her body but we see ads all the time on television for birth control. This ad tells the story of one of the greatest college football players of all time. It’s a good human interest story not just a political one.
As far as your last comments about the media being inherently liberal I think we have a lot more to fear when the media pulls stories from about the president being dishonest than we do about a network choosing not to run a gay dating site ad. http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/reuters-retracts-taxes-to-hit-middle-class-article/
http://www.businessinsider.com/reuters-takes-down-story-linked-by-drudge-report-2010-2
The first amendment doesn’t require networks to air certain ads just like it doesn’t require politicians to take controversial campaign donations. They have plenty of other outlets they can use to get their message out. In fact I think this controversy has given them more publicity than the actual ad would have anyway. I think the fact that the still very liberal CBS fears the backlash from running the ad shows that maybe this country is still a Center Right country like most libs fear.
lol, dude, you have a problem with EVERYTHING I have to say, but your opinions are always welcome.
And as far as your link regarding the Reuters retraction, are you implying that the media is always accurate in its reporting and therefore above getting called out? Or is it just a problem when pro-right articles get retracted?
Pretty much. Cant say I have agreed with any of your posts off the top of my head. I don’t have a problem with a story getting retracted if it’s incorrect. But when the retraction comes from a threat by the White House because they are making the President look bad, that’s a problem, whether its pro-left or pro-right. I would love to say that the media is above (or below) partisan politics, but we all know that’s not the case anymore.
Less than honest coverage by the mainstream media of this President has been a problem throughout his brief time in public office. The President is not on the campaign trail anymore. He has bigger problems to solve than worrying about when people will find out about his tax increases on the middle class.