Loved (or at least ok by CBS standards):
An ad run by Focus on the Family, a Christian ministry whose purpose is “to strengthen, defend and celebrate the institution of the traditional family and to highlight the unique and irreplaceable role that it plays in God’s larger story of redemption”, will be aired during the Superbowl on February 7th.
Featuring “college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam”, the ad “will share a personal story centered on the theme of ‘Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.’ ”
I caught a glimpse of a portion of the ad on Headline News a few days ago, but could not as yet find it anywhere online. (If you do, please forward the URL.). Keeping it close til the day it airs may be a wise move by Focus as this will heighten the controversy and curiosity about the ad. The clip I saw was a pro life ad, telling of Tebow’s mother’s choice not to abort him and what a wonderful choice that turned out to be.
Not loved by CBS, the following two ads that won’t be aired because CBS refused to sell Godaddy and Mancrunch the air time:
CBS has deemed it acceptable to permit one controversial ad and deny two. Is it discrimination, a savvy business decision, their right to do whatever they want, or something else? Are the ads (or the concept of the ads) offensive in your opinion? Do you agree with those who say the two rejected ads are too racy? Have you seen other aired Superbowl ads that were similarly “racy” but not as controversial?
I do believe the execs at Mancrunch and Godaddy are geniuses. Thanks to the internet, vast numbers of people are seeing their ads and talking about these issues with NO money going into the pocket of CBS. I consider CBS’ decision to be discriminatory. Personally, I have no problem with any of the three ads being run as I don’t have to accept everyone’s point of view simply because it is presented to me.
No related posts.
No it isn’t discrimination. CBS doesn’t owe anyone the right to air a commercial on their network. Most people don’t want homosexuality and crossdressing thrown in their faces and the don’t want impressionable children exposed to them. Those ads are too far over the line of decency. CBS has a right and a responsibility not to air things that are objectionable to viewers.
I agree with you. This is a discrimination and I hope both those companies sue CBS.
There’s no law that says CBS has to air anything they don’t want to.
Focus on the Family has good values and their intentions is to help people.
Why don’t more people answer your questions if you really have as many readers as you say? I am not saying you don’t but I am not clear why your “friends” are afraid to answer. Maybe they don’t want to publicly disagree because they are afraid they will make you look bad. I think you hold your own even when you are wrong.
I’m with Peter and Jack on this one. CBS has the right; and I’m sure they have turned down other ads from various viewpoints on grounds of questionable taste.
IMO, the ad from Mancrunch was way too over the top. The ad from Godaddy was less so, but indulged in some silly stereotyping which many persons might find offensive.
Freemann
Freemann, would you feel the Mancrunch ad was over the top if it had featured a man and a woman in the exact same setting?
Lady Julia,
But it dedn’t, ded it?
What would be the point of the ad if it ded?
What would be the point of the ad if it was two women?
What was the point of the ad as it is?
In any case, both the language and the imagery was rather raw.
Freemann
I believe the point of the ad was obvious.
The point of the ad if it were two women or a male and a female would still be the same.
My point was they run racy commercials all the time when they feature heterosexual relationships. I feel they are refusing this ad, not because it is too racy, but because it is homosexual in nature. They say they do not run controversial ads, but they are running the pro life ad paid for by a very controversial organization. They said they were refusing to run the ad because Mancrunch didn’t meet their credit check. Mancrunch says their original offer was for a full cash payment. No response from CBS.
In my opinion they are discriminating, hypocritical, and very dishonest. They have the right to air whatever they want, but what would happen if someone wanted to run that same ad featuring a black man and a white woman? What if instead of discussing airing a commercial, we were talking about serving a black person at a lunch counter?
Discrimination is wrong wherever, whenever, however it occurs.
Lady Julia,
What was the point of the ad? It was not obvious to me. OK, I’m being obtuse, but indulge me for the sake of augument.
Freemann
I’d say it’s pretty much the same point as this ad, an ad that did run during the 2009 Superbowl, an ad showing a woman humiliated because a guy crunching a Dorito caused her to be stripped of her clothes and left her standing in her underwear.
Or this one that aired on CBS in 2007.
I admit – the Mancrunch ad has a totally different message than this one (aired on CBS in 2007). A bit homophobic wouldn’t you say?
Sex captures people’s attention. Mancrunch’s targeted audience was told that Mancrunch was “where men come out and play”. A pretty good play on words, I think. It seems to me their only problem is they’re promoting the “wrong” type of sex to suit CBS.
The first ad was selling Doritos. Was the Mancrunch ad selling snack foods? The second ad was selling Godaddy’s services as a website developer, as was the other ad that CBS would sell time to for the Super Bowl. It parodied the use of sex in marketing in a somewhat similar way as the rejected ad; maybe that could be used as an argument for accepting the Godaddy ad,in spite of the potentially negative stereotyping. But was the Mancrunch ad selling web-site design services?
As for the Snickers ad, it was selling candy bars. Was the Mancrunch commercial selling candy bars?
And no, I wouldn’t say the Snickers ad was “homophobic” because I don’t use that meaningless neologism. Did it play off the common uneasiness that men have about even appearing to be homophiliac? Yes, but it made fun of that fear, and the extremes men will go to avoid situations which might question their masculinity.
So, what was the Mancrunch commercial selling?
Freemann
First, the “right of CBS to deny or approve”: someone has to make a decision, and where does one draw the line? CBS is owned by stockholders. If they don’t like the decisions, they can replace the decision makers. As for suing CBS over this, that is a stupid idea.
Next, the reason for denying, etc. I am not involved with the games, so I am not attuned to what the average fan prefers. I have no problem with either video. If I were watching the games and I did not like them, I could just go for a bathroom break. Nobody says I have to watch them.
As for the content of the videos, well, the mancrunch one reminds me of something from some years ago. I used to listen to a talk radio show in which the host was a man, straight heterosexual, and very much married to his wife. Once a male homosexual scenario came up as a subject. He commented (I don’t remember the exact words) “I can visualize a man’s hairy ass, and don’t see the attraction. When visiting my mom, I can’t see myself saying, ‘Mom, I am in love!’ and have that hairy ass as the object of my love.”
To each his own …
Yes, CBS currently has the legal right to choose not to air either of the two rejected ads.
Yes, CBS has a responsibility to their shareholders.
Similar things were said about business owners who refused to sell to or provide services for black people.
Discrimination was wrong then, and it’s wrong now.
The word “homophobia” is not meaningless nor is it a neologism. It’s a term that has been used for over thirty years to denote an irrational fear of homosexuality. If your use of the word neologism is meant to imply that “homophobia” is a meaningless word coined by a psychotic then your comment is insulting to a number of people.
Suing someone for discrimination is not a stupid idea. You might not agree with it but that doesn’t mean the idea is without merit. The media coverage of such a case would insure the cause had the attention of the people. Each time people are forced to examine their discriminatory behaviors is an opportunity for them to change their actions and beliefs. Some would argue that discrimination against anyone is in direct opposition to the Constitution, that document all those homophobic conservative patriots claim to hold dear.
You can’t alter the truth by belittling a person or a concept.
Lady Julia,
There is no comparison between refusing service in a resturant or hostelry on the basis of race (or other catagory), and refusing to sell advertising time to an entity whose commercial may be considered in questionable taste.
There is a long legal history in English Common Law (on which American Law is based) requiring innkeepers to provide service to everyone if they are operating a “public house.” I know this because for 9 years I was a Front Desk Clerk in a motel. It used to make us sweat, because there is also a long legal tradition of holding the innkeepers responsible if they rent a room to someone who uses the primises to commit a crime. Kind of a double bind.
On the other hand, the right to refuse to print or air an advertisment, for whatever reason, is protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Consitution. If one has the right to publish anything, no matter how stupid, then it follws that one has the right to NOT publish, for whatever reason.
Dscrimination, I assert (which means that anyone is free to disagree with me) is not wrong, per se. We are human beings; we discriminate all the time. Sometimes that ability to discriminate can save our lives, or at least make them less uncomfortable, as in the case with your Englishman. Sometimes our discrimination is purely personal, as when I distanced myself and my wife from her brother and his wife, because certain aspects of their BDSM relationship made me distinctly uncomfortable. And sometimes we discriminate in ways and for reasons which asre unacceptable. or stupid, or mistaken, or in the case of civil rights accomidation laws, illegal.
I suspect that you mean that you believe that CBS turned down the ad in question because it was homoerotic, and submitted by an organisation promoting acceptance of homoeroticism. You may be right in that belief, or you may be wrong. If you are right, it just means that you and the CBS ad execs disagree. No Right or Wrong on either side, just disagreement. If you are wrong, it may be that the CBS ad execs, while not opposed to the promotion of the acceptance of honoeroticism in principle, felt that this ad would have been counterproductive. And I think it would have been. Offending the very people you want to convince to be more accepting is a poor strategy.
Actually, I have been trying to get you to admit my above suspicion for many of my previous posts. I apologize. I am sorry I got all Socratic on you. Please don’t make me drink the hemlock.
Freemann
“You can’t alter the truth by belittling a person or a concept.”
Something you should remember.
I say “Homophobia” and related words are meaningless neologisms because they are made up words. It doesn’t matter if they were made up yesterday or 30 years ago. It was made up to look like a medical/psychiatric term, to fit in with other -phobias. But it is false to those models on two grounds. First, it combines incompatable roots, and slang abriviation of those roots at that. The correct format for forming a word defining a medical phobia is that the thing feared is described in Greek. If we were to consider “homophobia” as a correct psychological term, it would mean “fear of [some person or thing which is perceived as] the same, in the case of sex, “fear of the same sex.” You and I both know that is not how it is used. Second, a -phobia is a pathological, involutary fear and revulsion of a situation, thing person or object. a person suffering from a -phobia is sick and needs to be treated, is to be pitied and felt concern for, not disparaged. You and I both know that that is not how the term is used; it is used as a perjorative for anyone who does not agree with the “Gay Rights” political agenda. You used it so yourself in your post. A possible term to for what you claim to mean, without the perjoritive tone, might be “homophiliacophobia.”, and I’m not too sure of the grammar A person suffering from homophiacophobia would be highly neurotic, although it might not show if he was not exposed to homophiliacs, homoerotically inclined indivuals or homoerotic stimuli, rather like an aulurophobe who is not exposed to cats, or a claustrophobe who is not placed in a confined space.
As for lawsuits on the grounds of discrimination, if you go to court, you better have a good case. Otherwise the judges tend to regard your suit as frivolous, and they don’t like that much. Suing someone for something he has every right to do only makes you look silly, or if you get a sympathetic judge and win, makes you look dangerous and brings discredit to the judicial system..
Freemann
Well debated Freemann. Your argument was logical and to the point. Lady Julia let emotion rule her remarks. Women do that which is why men make better lawyers, soldiers, and politicians.
Even if you did win the argument I think your Socrates hemlock comment was too snide. You won. She didn’t need you to insult her.
Not sure I follow any of this but Freeman reminds me of someone and it’s starting to freak me out.
Chase,
Now that is an example of the difficulty in communicating through internet posts. I did not mean to sound snide. My apology was sincere, as I recognised that I may well have stepped over the line By disputing with Lady Julia on her own Blog. The remark about Socrates referred to making my points by asking questions. the Socratic Method. The remark about hemlock was an attempt at lihgt -hearted gallows houmor. The historical Socrates was given the choice of being bannished or drinking hemlock for his irreverence. I do not wish to be bannished from Lady Julia’s complex of sites and groups. Hence the plea to be excused from drinking the hemlock.
Susan,
Whom do I remind you of, and why does it freak you out? Was it something I said?
Freemann
I say “Homophobia” and related words are meaningless neologisms because they are made up words. It doesn’t matter if they were made up yesterday or 30 years ago.
Actually, for the term “neologism” to apply, by definition it does matter whether a term was coined yesterday or 30 years ago.
I am interested to note your assumption that the term “neologism” must also include a nuance of being meaningless to the general population. According to one of many similar published definitions, “neologism” only includes the nuance of meaninglessness to the general population when used in the context of psychiatry. As I understand Lady Julia’s post, the psychiatric context is irrelevant on this occasion.
It was made up to look like a medical/psychiatric term, to fit in with other -phobias. [...] If we were to consider “homophobia” as a correct psychological term, it would mean “fear of [some person or thing which is perceived as] the same, in the case of sex, “fear of the same sex.” You and I both know that is not how it is used. Second, a -phobia is a pathological, involutary fear and revulsion of a situation, thing person or object. a person suffering from a -phobia is sick and needs to be treated, is to be pitied and felt concern for, not disparaged. You and I both know that that is not how the term is used [...] A possible term to for what you claim to mean, without the perjoritive tone, might be “homophiliacophobia.”
I am interested to note your further assumptions that the term “homophobia” is newly coined and currently used exclusively as a technical psychological term, that the similarly coined term “homophiliac” is apparently more meaningful, and that the suffix “-phobia” is exclusively used to describe pathological and involuntary fear and revulsion.
Whilst I cannot speak for the motives of those who coined these terms, I know that the term “homophobia” and the “-phobia” suffix both most certainly incorporate meanings in currently established usage which you have disregarded, even though those meanings have been published in reputable lexicons for many years.
I do agree that words are very important, and I agree that every individual is right to assert their preference for the words most appropriate for them. However, on the one hand you denigrate the term “homophobic” as a meaningless neologism which you decline to use, yet on the other hand you expressed your preference for “homophiliac” as a neologism (according to your definition) which is meaningful for you.
However meaningful your preferred terms are for you personally, I’m pretty sure a lot of people (including myself) consider your rejected term to be meaningful to them and your preferred term less so. However, I certainly can accept that what is linguistically meaningful to the general population can still be meaningless for you.
Since other people’s usage of these terms is apparently so problematic for you, I’m wondering if the semantics or etymology section of a linguistics forum might more germanely fulfill your interests?
Freemann, I know you didn’t mean your remarks to be snide. I can disagree with someone and not take it personally. You are always welcome in my complex of sites and groups :)
Thank you for your apology. It wasn’t necessary but it was very nice of you.
“Whom do I remind you of, and why does it freak you out? Was it something I said?”
Sorry I was mistaken. Did not have my reading glasses with me.
I still think spelling should count.
Carry on.
Lubyanka,
A preist and one of his parishioners were working inthe garden on the church grounds. The parishioner dropped a large rock on his toe. “God damn it…” he began, and then, remembering the place and his company, aplogised, “I’m sorry, Father, I didn’t mean…..”
“It’s all right, my son,” replied the priest, “Although as a professional, I hate to see technical language misused,.”
Popular uses and distorions of technical medical and psychological terms is not new, and it often has been in a perjoritive sense.
Modern lexicansa record the misuse of many words, when the misuse becomes wide spread. See, for example, the change in the meanings of “imply’ vs “infer” over the years.
“Homoerotic” and “Homophilia” are not neologisms, but are 19th Century psychiatric terms for non-pathelogical and pathelogical attraction to the same sex, respectively. Unlike “homosexual” or “homophobic” their lingustic formation is consistant with grammar and medical usage of Greek terms. You may not choose to speculate on the motives of the persons who introduced those words, but philiological history demonstartes that both were introduced to create new emotitional associations to the concepts named: “Homosexual” to remove the perjorative stigma of the original popular term “sodomite”, and “homophobia” to crate a perjoritive stigma for persons who disagreed with the positions of “Gay Rights” activists.
Popularusage is extremely fluid, and changes all the time. Medical and scientific usage and meaning has to be more conservative.
Freemann
Susan,
Spelling counts, indeed. But I have big fat fingertips,which often slip, and teeny-tiny screen print,which makes it hard to read myown posts, so lots of times I don’t see my mistakes until after I have hit “Submit Comment” [rueful grin]
Freemann
“Popular uses and distorions of technical medical and psychological terms is not new [...] Modern lexicansa record the misuse of many words, when the misuse becomes wide spread. [...] Popularusage is extremely fluid, and changes all the time. Medical and scientific usage and meaning has to be more conservative.”
I’m glad your idea of language works for you. Thankfully, language and people are diverse and support multiple viewpoints. Perhaps members of a linguistics forum might be more interested in engaging with you on whether linguistic evolution and change can be accurately characterised as “distortion” and “misuse” or as natural development.
When two persons discuss anything, they need to agree on the meanings of the words they use. Since you and I clearly disagree, I fail to see any value in continuing any exchange.,
Freemann
“When two persons discuss anything, they need to agree on the meanings of the words they use. Since you and I clearly disagree, I fail to see any value in continuing any exchange.”
If you read back over what I said, you may note that I never disputed any of your meanings. What I did do was challenge your assertion that your usage was the only valid one.
I do agree that continuing this exchange is likely to be of little benefit to me.