Super Bowl AirTime: CBS Censors the Left, but Not the Right (refuses gay ad)

[2 Much Tribulation]

Congress may make no law limiting freedom of speech. As of last week, that means no law even as to non-voters & non-humans in the form of corporations that don't know the first thing about democracy because they don't ever practice it with their own employees, breaking the most fundamental ethical rule present in every philosophical and religious system: the Golden Rule.

Hypocrisy is too weak of a word to describe CBS Super Bowl ad policy of turning down ads. CBS makes policy that acts just the same as laws censoring speech based on content, and CBS enforces them as to advocacy ads it considers not "responsibibly produced."

Thus, CBS accepted Focus on the Family's anti-choice/pro-life/anti-abortion ad. It was "responsibly produced."

But CBS has declined an ad by a gay dating service willing to pay for Super Bowl Time. See
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2010/01/gay-dating-site-claims-cbs-is-discriminating-against-its-super-bowl-ad/1


Let's not in this post focus on the PARTICULARS of the ad refused, in case any readers are inclined to be uncomfortable with the "speech" or say "it's not political per se" and the like.

The really big issue here is the apparently uncontested power of CBS to pick and choose ideological messages to further or not further.

Did Citizens United kick We the People out of any voice or regulation of campaign speech, only to leave us defenseless against arbitrary media-corporate censorship policies to which both the Constitution and laws are inapplicable because they are in the "private" sector of media corporations?

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2010/01/gay-dating-site-claims-cbs-is-discriminating-against-its-super-bowl-ad/1


THERE are many ways in which Citizens United does NOT "open the floodgates" (as well as ways it does).

For example, when it comes to CBS policy, it is "shutting the floodgates of gay speech."

When it comes to deterring policitians from taking on big corporations, there doesn't even need to BE a floodgate at all, just the mere threat that big corporations could go on the attack is enough to make our politicians who do not wish to be career-based political suicide bombers into political wimps. You won't see this power on any FEC disclosure form and you never will see it, because it's money NOT spent that is the most powerful.

That's just like the CBS refusal to air the ad for the gay dating service - it's money NOT spent that is even more powerful in distorting our freedoms than money spent!

[2 Much Tribulation]

1. Who may I thank for the unrec? Please post unreccer and share your enlightenment. n/t

[texastoast]

24. Fucking trolls

Asswipes.

Corporate sucking unpatriotic trolls.

Worse than pond scum fucking asswipe trolls.

God, I feel better now.

[bigwillq]

39. Who cares?

You got 55 recs, including one from me. Don't waste your time worrying over getting an unrec. It happens. No biggie.

[2 Much Tribulation]

41. RIght on. I don't care except to engage the person in debate. Potential sparring partner there, ok?

Am I crying? NOooooooooooo!!!! Was I? Nooooooooo...

[Political Heretic]

68. If if the issue wasn't so important, I'd unrecc just or commenting on it.

I'm tried of people posting and then the very next post be them whining about some unrec.

Get over it!

(But no unrec this time because this is more important that something nit-picky like that.)

[Ms. Toad]

83. Ditto.

That whine would normally earn an immediate unrec from me.

[cbdo2007]

2. CBS is a private company. They can do whatever they want and air whatever they want.

If you don't like it, organize a boycott of the Superbowl and of CBS.

I'm guessing you'll still watch it though just to see the ads they choose to run so you can get more and more mad about it though, right? RIGHT??

[2 Much Tribulation]

5. Sorry to see you freely accept NO FREE SPEECH. But you're WRONG on "anything they want"

It is CONGRESS that has heretofore ratified this. Congress has the power to ensure equal opportunity and otherwise provide the skeleton of free markets (contract laws, etc), free elections (election laws) and free speech as well. See Arkansas Educ. TV Comm'n v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666 (1997) ("Congress has rejected the argument that “broadcast facilities should be open on a nonselective basis to all persons wishing to talk about public issues.” Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 105 (1973).)

[defendandprotect]

37. Agree -- but what have they protected, from wiretapping to torture?

[Land Shark]

64. Abuses in "war on terra" are a different context, abuse here wouldn't have "war" justification

[defendandprotect]

93. As long as the CIA is controlling what we see and hear on corporate-press ...

any right wing issue will hold sway over any liberal side of a debate!

And certainly CIA looks like "national security" to me -- ???

[HuckleB]

52. There is far more to the matter than that line, though I wish there were not.

For example:

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:sEQ01Pyy08EJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl%3Fcourt%3DUS%26vol%3D000%26invol%3D96-779+%22Congress+has+rejected+the+argument+that+%E2%80%9Cbroadcast+facilities+should+be+open+on+a+nonselective+basis+to+all+persons+wishing+to+talk+about+public+issues.%E2%80%9D&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

"...

Congress has rejected the argument that "broadcast facilities should be open on a nonselective basis to all persons wishing to talk about public issues." Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 105 (1973). Instead, television broadcasters enjoy the "widest journalistic freedom" consistent with their public responsibilities. Id. , at 110; FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U.S. 364, 378 (1984). Among the broadcaster's responsibilities is the duty to schedule programming that serves the "public interest, convenience, and necessity." 47 U.S.C. ž 309(a). Public and private broadcasters alike are not only permitted, but indeed required, to exercise substantial editorial discretion in the selection and presentation of their programming.

As a general rule, the nature of editorial discretion counsels against subjecting broadcasters to claims of viewpoint discrimination. Programming decisions would be particularly vulnerable to claims of this type because even principled exclusions rooted in sound journalistic judgment can often be characterized as viewpoint-based. To comply with their obligation to air programming that serves the public interest, broadcasters must often choose among speakers expressing different viewpoints. "That editors-newspaper or broadcast-can and do abuse this power is beyond doubt," Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 412 U.S., at 124 ; but "alculated risks of abuse are taken in order to preserve higher values." Id., at 125. Much like a university selecting a commencement speaker, a public institution selecting speakers for a lecture series, or a public school prescribing its curriculum, a broadcaster by its nature will facilitate the expression of some viewpoints instead of others. Were the judiciary to require, and so to define and approve, pre-established criteria for access, it would risk implicating the courts in judgments that should be left to the exercise of journalistic discretion.

When a public broadcaster exercises editorial discretion in the selection and presentation of its programming, it engages in speech activity. Cf. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 636 (1994) ("Through 'original programming or by exercising editorial discretion over which stations or programs to include in its repertoire,' cable programmers and operators 'see to communicate messages on a wide variety of topics and in a wide variety of formats' ") (quoting Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc., 476 U.S. 488, 494 (1986)). Although programming decisions often involve the compilation of the speech of third parties, the decisions nonetheless constitute communi cative acts. See Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 570 (1995) (a speaker need not "generate, as an original matter, each item featured in the communication").

Claims of access under our public forum precedents could obstruct the legitimate purposes of television broadcasters. Were the doctrine given sweeping application in this context, courts "would be required to oversee far more of the day-to-day operations of broadcasters' conduct, deciding such questions as whether a particular individual or group has had sufficient opportunity to present its viewpoint and whether a particular viewpoint has already been sufficiently aired." Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., supra, at 127. "The result would be a further erosion of the journalistic discretion of broadcasters," transferring "control over the treatment of public issues from the licensees who are accountable for broadcast performance to private individuals" who bring suit under our forum precedents. 412 U.S., at 124 . In effect, we would "exchange 'public trustee' broadcasting, with all its limitations, for a system of self-appointed editorial commentators." Id., at 125.

..."


Thus, CBS probably has all the wiggle room it needs.

:(

[Land Shark]

62. The EXACT point is that NOW congress can un-reject and needs to

I am wondering why you think an act of congress long ago and before CU is untouchable? You didn't say so, but you imply there's some huge problem here when all it involves is a statutory change.

First, all in favor of the change say so. Then let Congress reject that if in fact that's what they're of a mind to do--- NOW WE KNOW who's responsible and more it's more than one entity.

[dem mba]

76. what law dictates that CBS must air advertisements

from sponsors you agree with?

It's pragmatically good for business for CBS to remain politically neutral, which is why most of the big broadcasters don't get too involved in the right/left debates. But if CBS chooses to run a pro-life ad and not a pro-gay marriage one on the Super Bowl or any other program, I know of no law which prevents them from doing so.

Let me know if I'm wrong. We're not talking about programming here either, it's advertisements only.

[defendandprotect]

92. There is, of course, no "law" that decision making anywhere should be just . . .

but shouldn't there at least be a pretense of justice???

They accept money for ads -- that's the point of advertisements --

When advertisements turn political and they become gatekeepers, then it requires

that BOTH sides of an issue be heard --

Oh, oops! that notion is gone with Fairness in Broadcasting Doctrine!

[dem mba]

94. if there is no law

then this is all a moot point. There is no such thing as a "pretense of justice", since that's a totally subjective concept when you are operating off the law books.

I would concede that there is a huge murky grey area when dealing with political advertisements. I believe there are stricter rules during elections though.

[defendandprotect]

96. This is political and CBS has taken sides -- they have sided with the homohobes ...

[me b zola]

13. As a woman, a friend to the LGBT community, and a progressive, I won't be watching

~and normally I do watch the Super Bowl. I wish that more people would take a principled stand, but whatever.

[Better Believe It]

14. Isn't CBS a person?

[defendandprotect]

38. ....and if they were a "person" -- would they be gay????

:eyes:

[RedCloud]

54. Or if Tebow takes snaps from under the center's jewels would he be gay?

[Enthusiast]

82. America is not ready for a

gay corporation.

[Blue_Tires]

20. um.... no -- They are regulated by the FCC among others, for starters

I think what you mean is with no fairness doctrine, CBS is not legally required to accept an opposition ad...But given the flimsy-assed excuses for denying UCC, PETA, and other liberal groups in the past (i.e., wanting to be "impartial") and then running this shit, I think the debate over reviving the fairness doctrine will heat up again...

[fascisthunter]

25. really? Can Somebody on CBS Yell Fuck You While On Air?

No... because even the media is regulated and they need to be held responsible just like every other "private" company. They are not above us...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. What's your beef? -nt

[cascadiance]

35. Not if they want to keep all of their affiliates' broadcast licenses!

As soon as they cross that "my own bias" threshold, they will not be complying with the terms of broadcast licenses and they can be pulled.

[Bluebear]

49. Fuck you. There. That was MY free speech.

[JanMichael]

50. Could have said it - but you said it better.

Fuck the anti-free speech idiot.

[Binka]

71. Don't Back Down Baby

Thump them hard BB.

[Bluebear]

72. All this "you are just looking to be outraged" shit, enough of it already!

[Lorien]

86. Only true since the Fairness Doctrine was removed by Reagan. The people STILL own the airwaves

like it or not.

[CrispyQ]

3. I just sent them an email.

Dear CBS,

My husband & I enjoy your shows, CSI, The Mentalist, Criminal Minds, NCIS, 60 Minutes & Letterman. Many of these shows are shown on other stations & they also come out on DVD.

Because CBS has decided to show an anti-abortion ad during the Superbowl & yet refused to show an ad supporting gay rights, my husband & I have decided that we can wait to watch these shows until they are available in other ways. We will not be tuning into CBS to watch these shows, any more.

Shame on CBS management for making this horrid decision. Gay citizens deserve equal rights & in case you weren't aware, abortion is a legal procedure. You should have either shown both commercials or neither commercial.

We will not forget this & channel 4 will no longer be displayed in this house.

CrispyQ

[twitomy]

36. Has anyone really seen the Tebow ad?

From what i have heard, all he says more or less is "im glad i was born". and its not an anti-abortion rant. If true, I dont get why anyone would be worked up about it. "Choice" does mean more than one choice, correct?

[Cid_B]

73. Sure...

As long as you make the one that everyone seems to know is best for you.

[CrispyQ]

80. It is isn't about whether it's a ranting anti-abortion commercial or not.

The point is that CBS has decided to take sides on wedge issues. That's fine. They can do that. But if they want to side with conservatives on these types of issues & exclude commercials that promote progressive views, then they should know that it cost them two viewers.

[twitomy]

99. I have no problem with what your saying. NT...

[defendandprotect]

4. As long as we have a corporate-press, we have corporate/fascism . . .

what do you expect???

[2 Much Tribulation]

6. I expect Congress to do its job -- see reply #5 for link to case law

[Jamastiene]

7. K&R

[lala_rawraw]

8. kick! n/t

[Echo In Light]

9. K&R

[meegbear]

10. Well color me rainbows, no surprise here ...

this would have been a excellent opportunity to show the nation, nay the world, that being gay is no different then being straight.

But with general homophobia being an 'accepted norm' as well as homophobia in the NFL (Esera Tuaolo's book Alone in the Trenches: My Life as a Gay Man in the NFL discusses it from the inside), it's gonna take a while longer.

Thanks CBS.

[Land Shark]

11. Yeah, no matter how institutionalized for how long, inequality is stil offensive n/t

[gratuitous]

22. Well, it's not like gay men watch football anyway, right?

I mean, what would be the attraction for gay men in a bunch of athletic, well-conditioned world class athletes in skin-tight uniforms running around and occasionally piling on top of one another?

As for CBS, the Tiffany Network sure has seen better days, hasn't it? Their lame excuses about controversial or issue-oriented advertising just fail on so many levels. The UCC ad they turned down back in 2005 was responsibly produced (as far as I could tease out a meaning from that corporospeak phrase), and I'm sure Focus on the Family observes the highest production values. So did Triumph of the Will, but that doesn't make it something I want to sit through again, either.

[me b zola]

12. This is why I won't be watching this year

I really like football and usually watch the Super Bowl, but not this year. No freaking way am I going to reward cbs with my viewership.

[Better Believe It]

15. K & R

[Rhythm]

16. Not one minute of my time will belong to CBS

I have told them why as well... not that they care.

CBS can blow me.

Geaux Saints!

[marshall]

17. It really comes down to an anti-gay bias

As I posted earlier in the week, of the three previously refused ads, the one I thought was most relevant to the anti-advocacy argument was the United Church of Christ ad supporting same sex relationships.

But I think the argument is weakened because I think the currently refused dating ad was a last minute thing. CBS can say they had the ads lined up before they received the information about it. I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that with advertising going for this much and considering how much people work on and look forward to the ads in the SuperBowl the whole thing has got to be set up well in advance.

[Land Shark]

21. Per the link, CBS is not "out of space" so it doesn't appear that applies. n/t

[marshall]

26. Reread it more carefully, the article says exactly what I stated

What you're talking about is an allegation that ManCrunch is responding with. It is a supposition that would be difficult to prove, whereas it would be far easier for CBS (assuming they are being disinegenuous) to throw together something that would support their claim that all ads are already sold.

[WCGreen]

18. they also wouldn't show the Move On.org commercial against the war...

The republicans have it right, the country is right of center, if all you do is pay attention to the self serving agenda of the corporations...

[Liberal_in_LA]

19. K&R

[pleah]

23. Past time to boycott CBS!

K&R

[Arkana]

27. It's a pisser, yeah--but it's not going to keep me from watching the Super Bowl.

[Initech]

29. I'll watch the game but I sure as shit won't watch the ads.

[Telly Savalas]

46. I'd probably do that anyway. Thank god for the DVR box.

You can shave an hour off a football game with that thing.

[glinda]

30. Where is the Petition?

[Ezlivin]

31. Would they air the commercial if Tim Tebow was talking about his own homosexuality?

Imagine a commercial with Tim Tebow and his mother, except this time she is there to support him and his husband.

Would CBS turn this down?

[Starry Messenger]

32. K & R

[d_b]

33. I've watched every Super Bowl since XXV

That tradition ends this year.

Congrats, CBS.

[igfoth]

34. Those who are upset over CBS yet will still watch the game

are just as bad as CBS and have no principals nor courage of conviction.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out.

[2 Much Tribulation]

40. If you're still watching the game and tell us so here, then I SURE HOPE

you

(1) enjoy the game, sans commercials, and most importantly

(2) since you had the courage to rain a tiny bit on this parade, (on the folks you agree with, by saying you're watching) then make sure you find a way to rain on CBS too (the ones who deserve it much more)

[alp227]

43. How about just watching the game but running out of the room when Tebow's face comes up?

I mean, I disagree with Focus on the Family but still want to watch the frickin' game! I've watched every Super Bowl since XLI and would be really sad by missing it; in fact there's a fraternity at my college that's holding a Super Bowl party next week!

[The_Commonist]

42. Sorry, I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill...

You don't want to talk about the particulars of the commercial?
It's a commercial with two dudes making out.
Of course they're not going to run that.
The Super Bowl is about tits and ass and beer.
They don't want to turn off the macho guys who watch football.

This has nothing to do with "free speech."
This has nothing to do with "shutting the floodgates of gay speech."
This has to do with making sure that they don't turn off their target market.
It's about dollars.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
CBS is not required to air that ad, or any other.
Your hyperbole does not help...

[dem mba]

77. agreed nt.

[depakid]

44. That's what happens when you take media re-regulation and divestment off the table

Get used to it- because it's going to get a LOT worse.

[Land Shark]

45. Except Congress HAS the power to insist that ideological ads of ALL sides NOT be censored

See the case cited in #5 above. Just like free elections and free markets, where Congress nevertheless provides fair ground rules for ALL to exercise freedom within.

[The_Commonist]

47. It's not an idealogical ad.

It's an ad for a dating service.

[marshall]

53. And an incredibly poorly made ad too

In contrast to something like the cat herders ad this looks like something a junior high student with an iphone would make.

I admire the effort to make a statement about the homophobia at CBS, but I hope it's made with a little more finese next time.

[Land Shark]

61. One can wish that about many commercials. Is THAT your censorship reason? Or just a wish?

[marshall]

70. I think it was hurriedly thrown together to make a statement

A valuable statement, mind you, but one that would have been served better by something given much more time and thought and creative insight. I would have preferred to see the United Church of Christ put one of their commercials in.

[depakid]

56. Congress isn't about to do that and the administration has nixed returning to responsible regulation

So, like I said- get used to it, because it's only going to get much worse for you in the states.

Just wait'll the Comcast deal with NBC is approved.

[Land Shark]

65. No, I'm still giving my opinion. If I don't that makes it REALLY easy for them. n/t

[dem mba]

78. hey I just made a pro-gay marriage commercial too!

in it, two naked men are fucking each other, but its blurry and tastefully done so its cool. Think CBS will air it during a football game next season? No? Good, then you're still sane.

CBS has wide discretion when choosing their ad sponsors. Sorry, but Congress can't force them to air this or any other commercial.

[unapatriciated]

48. saw this on the local morning show and thought wtf

proud rec #62

[alp227]

51. I don't have a very strong opinion against the Tebow ad but have one with CBS's selective bias

This is the same network who during the 1970s succeeded in delivering a culture clash to America's living rooms every Monday night with All in the Family. That show was the top-rated show every season from 1971-1976!

The next decade, CBS again encountered ratings and controversy with the police drama Cagney & Lacey as the show explored sensitive women's issues (like abortion, breast cancer, date rape).

Just six years ago, CBS went all out with its Super Bowl halftime show...only to fall to bad PR and a fine by the FCC when Justin Timberlake exposed Janet Jackson's breast.

Censorship ain't nothing new to CBS, after it weaseled out and pre-empted an Ed Bradley report challenging President Bush's pretenses for the Iraq War until after the 2004 election. That of course followed the bad press over Dan Rather's story on Bush's military service. Rather used possibly inauthentic evidence.

In 2007, the last time CBS aired the Super Bowl, it showed a Snickers ad that later became controversial over accusations of homophobia: the ad depicted two male auto mechanics eating the same candy bar, unintentionally kissing each other, and then ripping out their chest hairs in reaction.

After all this, the network regresses and digs itself a deep burrow by still sucking it up to the religious right.

C'mon, you can't exploit a widely-viewed national football game to advance your own agenda against abortion! I watched this Associated Press video to see what the commercial was about and was outraged to see that Tebow is pretty much delivering the message that abortion kills potential football champions. What a very illogical, selfish message. Tell that to victims of rape/incest or teenage girls who forgot their protection during sex (maybe because of federally funded abstinence ed).

And this Washington Post editorial, What Tim Tebow's Super Bowl ad can teach the pro-choice movement reports also:

Tebow is not the first football star to look into a camera and talk about birth, life and choice. In 1989, Wellington Mara, then the co-owner of the New York Giants, helped produce a nine-minute video featuring members of his 1987 Super Bowl championship team. Mara was on the board of directors of the anti-abortion American Life League, and the group widely distributed the video to churches, schools and pro-life organizations. It didn't air on broadcast television, much less on Super Bowl Sunday. But its extreme antiabortion language contrasts sharply with the warm and fuzzy -- and even inspirational -- message of the Tebow ad.

The 1989 video features tight end Mark Bavaro catching a touchdown pass and saying: "At the end of the game, all the Giants players left the field champions. Now with the abortion death squads allowed to run rampant through our country, I wonder how many future champions will be killed before they see the light of day."

George Martin, an African American defensive end, compares Roe v. Wade, which said "unborn babies have no rights," to the "shameful Dred Scott decision that said that black people have no rights."

What a stupid comparison between unborn babies and already-born people of color.

Well, public attitudes on abortion have advanced over those 20 years! I can't wait to see the post-Super Bowl reaction to Tebow's propaganda ad. How can CBS call it "responsibly produced"? By the way, I watched the video of the gay dating service ad. Why are the two kissing men wearing Packers and Vikings jerseys anyway when those teams got ELIMINATED from the playoffs a long time ago? That doesn't really sound "responsibly produced" to me.

[guruoo]

55. Was this 'gay dating ad' about avocacy, or was it about business?

:shrug:

[Land Shark]

60. Relevance? Is it ok to ask if censored commercial w/ African American in is advocacy or business?

[guruoo]

69. I'm trying to understand the context. n/t

[fishwax]

57. CBS had the right to refuse such ads long before this decision, and did so a few years ago with a

United Church of Christ ad that pointed out the denomination's openness towards gay members and their recognition of same sex marriage and criticized other churches for their stance. CBS has also refused other ads from groups like planned parenthood and peta, iirc. It has nothing to do with the Cutizens United decision.

[Land Shark]

58. It has to do with AN ACT OF CONGRESS, see reply #5, that should be revisited in light of CU n/t

[fishwax]

63. I'm not saying the status quo should prevail -- just that CU didn't change the status quo w/ respect

to CBS's ability to refuse advertising. It should be revisited, yes, but that was true two weeks ago as well.

[Land Shark]

67. Ok, but context has shifted dramatically now, equities much more in favor (and consciousness raised)

of revisiting this area. So while it was also true two weeks ago, the soil is more fertile now.

[Cha]

59. Well, here's a phone number for

cbs..

CBS
-Phone: [phone]

[bridgit]

66. ^

:kick:

[rpannier]

74. Watched it

Laughed at the end

Haven't seen a Super Bowl on TV (in the states) in almost a decade so I don't know what kinds of commercials they have allowed to be shown.

[Land Shark]

75. morning kick n/t

[ananda]

79. Boycott!

Well.. it's easy for me to boycott anyway.

I don't understand why anyone watched pro football
anyway!

[The Green Manalishi]

81. If you don't like CBS's policy

Don't watch the stupid game. And don't buy stuff from their advertisers.

unreced for whining.

I've never seen a stupid bowl and have no desire to.

[L0oniX]

84. Please don't stop all the big busted women beer commercials.

:sarcasm:

[Lorien]

85. Um, this was my VERY ARGUMENT for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but most

DUers just parrot Citizens United and sqeal about the Fairness Doctrine having "curbed free speech" when most aren't old enough to remember the MSM pre-Reagan, and don't realize that the GOP propaganda on the subject has worked on them. DO YOU GET IT NOW??? THEY control who gets heard and what messages dominate the air waves. This has been true since the Fairness Doctrine was ended by Reagan, so it's nothing new.

[pundaint]

87. Watch the game if you give a shit about football, but note the advertisers and send them a letter

pointing out that you wont be buying their product for 60 days or until you notice the banned ad on CBS because of the corporate censorship that their advertising dollars to CBS funded. If someone wanted to set up a email site for potential viewers saying the same thing to advertisers before the superbowl, I'd pledge to the boycott.

[greiner3]

88. Well, admittadly it has had the effect;

Of giving the dating service more air play than their dollars would have bought. However, I will agree with all that take the other side of this, that is not the point. What will happen to CBS when the cryptkeeper actually falls down (dies)?

[mac56]

91. Absolutely true.

The dating service has now gotten a ton of FREE pub. You can't buy publicity like this.

[concerned1]

89. I want them to air this public service ad:

http://creativity-online.com/work/aides-graffiti/18473

[PerpetuallyDazed]

90. Gay ad isn't even "political", "ideological" ...

It's a dating website, up there with eHarmony and all the rest. It's not like they're endorsing gay marriage.

On edit: Folks making out is not offensive to me. But the way they project busty women in beer commercials is what I find "distasteful" and crude.

[jmowreader]

95. I've seen the ad. I wouldn't have run it either.

First, a lot of people would get offended by a spot depicting a full-on spit-swapping grope no matter what the sexual identity of the two participants was. There are plenty of couples out there who seem to find sex so repulsive you wonder how they ever had children, who would go fucking APE SHIT over this spot. And they've got the FCC on speed dial. Look close at the next eHarmony spot you see--there's more sexual energy in dish soap ads.

And second, it looks like ManCrunch spent fifty bucks throwing this thing together.

I like the idea of running a real advocacy ad rather than this spot.

[lightningandsnow]

97. Weren't they the ones who also wouldn't air the trailer for the Dixie Chicks documentary?

Or was that another network?

[indy legend]

98. Doesn't this kind of

put a dent in that whole conservative bullshit argument that "all the media has a liberal bias ?"

[MilitarismFTL]

100. I am surprised

More that this is coming from CBS. This is definitely something I would expect from ABC, though.