More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Kelli Conlin

Kelli Conlin

Posted: February 5, 2010 10:55 AM

CBS's Super Bowl Error Was One of Transparency

What's Your Reaction:

Last month we learned that the CBS network would air a television spot during the Super Bowl from the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family. The commercial tells the story of Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother Pam. Pam, who became ill while pregnant in 1987 while on a Christian missionary trip to the Philippines, rejected her doctor's advice to terminate her pregnancy and ultimately gave birth to Tim.

This is not the first time rumors have swirled around controversial Super Bowl ads. Historically, such ads are rejected by networks as too contentious and divisive. For example, in 2004 CBS rejected an ad from the United Church of Christ which said that its doors were open to all people, including gay men and lesbians (a rather ironic rejection since the ad's message was inclusion).

The situation seemed to be playing out similarly this year. But as we tracked the rumors about the Focus on the Family ad, the usual network denial became conspicuously absent. Last week we all learned that CBS had contradicted its long-enforced policy banning overtly ideological ads and agreed to run Focus on the Family's commercial. In response to calls of hypocrisy from other advocacy organizations (including reproductive rights groups) CBS announced that others are welcome to run opposing ads, to the tune of $2-3 million.

While NARAL Pro-Choice New York fundamentally objects to Focus on the Family's anti-choice positions, we take specific issue with the process that CBS employed in accepting the ad. By failing to make its about-face in policy clear to the public, CBS has acted neither transparently nor fairly.

Airing an ad of our own would indeed be the appropriate recourse. Decades of pro-choice activism have taught us that when we encounter a position with which we disagree, rather than trying to eliminate or censor it, we should offer a counter-position. Being able to clearly and logically present our pro-choice message, backing that position with a reasoned explanation of our values, has gained us the rights we have today. As the free speech dictum goes: speech we don't like should be met with more speech, not less. But by surreptitiously and unexpectedly changing its policy, CBS has effectively denied us the ability to respond with an equal and adequate counter-argument.

Focus on the Family had substantial time to craft this ad and raise the millions necessary to air it. CBS's offer - made at the eleventh hour - is simply not realistic. I don't know of an advocacy organization with an extra $3 million on hand and that can produce an ad quickly enough to get it approved by the network.

This situation has dealt a blow to transparency and fair speech and at the end of the day Focus on the Family can claim their victory of having a 30 second spot clustered amid commercials for beer, chips and banks. In the meantime we will continue to spend our time --and money -- doing what we do every day: working to make sure that every woman has the right, and the ability, to access safe, legal reproductive healthcare and to exercise her right to make the decisions that are best for and her family.


 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 19
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
04:41 PM on 02/07/2010
CBS is a bunsiness. It needs to worry about what mainstream America thinks. The calculation is that mainstream America will be OK with the Tebow ad but not the f@gg@t kissing ad. CBS is already in big trouble with ratings from it's left leaning bias, the last thing they need is to infuriate to the mainstream more by once again demostrating their very unpopular stance on political issues. That's just the way it is. There is nothing you can do about it.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Jehmu Greene
04:52 PM on 02/06/2010
JOCK-OC-RISY, WMC's Super Bowl Sexism Watch will air Sunday, February 7, 5:30 pm - 10:30 pm, at http://bit.ly/ustreamwmc

Join Gloria Steinem, WMC President Jehmu Greene, NOW President Terry O’Neill, Shelby Knox, and special guests on Super Bowl Sunday as we continue to hold CBS the NFL accountable for their biased policy reversal in favor of Focus on the Family's anti-choice, anti-woman, homophobic agenda.

The multiplatform broadcast will include a play-by-play of the sexism and bias in Super Bowl ads and culture. We will be taking your questions and commentary, exposing Focus on the Family's agenda, and discussing how to amplify women's voices in the media and change the conversation.

Watch the show and text “WOMEN” to 50555 to give $10 in support of WMC's ongoing Sexism Watch campaign.
10:28 PM on 02/05/2010
There's really not a furor here. It's just the left-winged, anti-Christian media getting its feathers ruffled because Tim Tebow is standing up for an ideal supported by billions.

Will these same liberal news editors run these types of stories after the Oscars when the people at the Academy Awards ceremonies bash Republicans, Christians and conservatives for four hours straight?

I doubt it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LanceLee
02:05 PM on 02/07/2010
If you think the media is anti-Christian, then you do not understand what is going on. My guess is that you are a hard-core evangelical, and you think that you are mainstream religious.
When you say anti-Christian I bet you mean they don't agree that-The end time are coming/the world is 6k years old/if you are not evangelical you are going to hell/the bible is the truth word for word.
If that is what you mean, the yes you are probably right, since those things don't make any sense. You have every right to believe them, but don't expect anyone else to by into things that don't make sense.

Here is something I can't get my mind around, maybe you can help me. At one point there are four humans on the planet, correct? Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel. Who does Abel have children with?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LanceLee
02:07 PM on 02/07/2010
I think I got my son's mixed up. I mean "Who does Cain have children with?"
07:31 PM on 02/05/2010
CBS not only allowed the Focus on the Family ad, on Rachel Maddow's show she exposed last night CBS was co-writing this ad for MONTHS.

I sent a message to CBS via Emily's List, and hope other Pro-Choice people do too.
I have no problem with Focus on the Family airing their ad 24/7, I object to CBS making one exception for THIS politically controvercial ad, and learning they helped CREATE the ad.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
ECBA88
03:51 PM on 02/07/2010
That's pretty disgusting.
03:58 PM on 02/05/2010
Transparency ?..... CBS has no obligation to publicize its advertising decisions,,, And Planned Parenthood has never been accused of transparency when it has built clinics under different names to avoid public scrutiny,,, as when they did in Aurora Illinois
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
lisakaz2
Da ministero dell'interno di Snark.
05:03 PM on 02/05/2010
But they advised this group. That's more than a policy decision.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
HPdevotee
08:19 AM on 02/06/2010
"...built clinics under different names to avoid public scrutiny,.."

"public scrutiny" huh...
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/09/clinic.html

And then there's this...

"After weeks of politicization, Planned Parenthood is finally able to open their new clinic in Aurora, IL. Yesterday, the Kane County state's attorney said there was no wrongdoing after reviewing the clinic's development and permit process. The investigation was prompted by the complaints of anti-choice protesters and some members of the City Council. This was the third review to find no problems with the permit process."
http://www.prochoice.org/blog/labels/PP%20Aurora.html
03:43 PM on 02/05/2010
"logically present our pro-choice message, backing that position with a reasoned explanation of our values,

Planned parenthood makes money off of abortions. This is a business just like any other.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
lisakaz2
Da ministero dell'interno di Snark.
05:06 PM on 02/05/2010
Do you know anything about this group? They set a scale of charges based on ability to pay -- for all services. I got medical treatment at one (of the ob/gyn variety) and what I paid was based on what I earned. Who do you think supplemented the difference between what I paid and what I earned?
07:33 PM on 02/05/2010
Total LIE less than 3% of Planned Parenthood is involved with abortion in any way.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mark Harker
12:18 PM on 02/09/2010
And that three percent is why i will never give a cent of my money to them.
03:42 PM on 02/05/2010
"reproductive health" is a totally different thing that having an abortion.

I don't know why people who say they are pro-choice do not want people to actually make a choice. Pro choice means that each woman get a choice = to give birth or to terminate the pregnancy. You just seem to get upset at women who do not choose termination. Not much of a "choice" you give them.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
lisakaz2
Da ministero dell'interno di Snark.
05:08 PM on 02/05/2010
Funny but that's not how I read the ad. They want to force women to risk their lives on a problem pregnancy. You call that a choice?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ArtTeach
06:38 PM on 02/05/2010
That's quite the straw man argument you've got going there. I am strongly pro-choice, but would never in a million years have an abortion, and would be deeply disappointed if anyone I knew had one. However, if they did decide not to carry a pregnancy to term, I'd want them to have medical treatment. Not a wire hanger.
I would challenge you to provide evidence that there is ANY pro-choice person who thinks abortion is the most desirable choice, instead of making patently false claims that ALL of us feel that way.
02:15 PM on 02/05/2010
CBS is under no obligation to make its decision making process open to the public. Perhaps since you are advocating this, you can explain to us how NARAL goes about notifying the public of all of its potential decisions prior to the time they are made.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
lisakaz2
Da ministero dell'interno di Snark.
05:10 PM on 02/05/2010
Funny because they announced their policy when they turned down an ad a few yrs ago but now they let this one go thru AND they help that group with the ad, which goes beyond policy making to participation. But you have no problem with that? Would you if the msg were different? What if they did that FOR NARAL?