Gay adds?

[FinalEnigma]

I'm not sure quite whether this is politics, but regardless:


A television station refused to air an add for a gay dating site during the superbowl.

Article below(from msn news):

NEW YORK, Jan. 29 (UPI) -- The U.S. television network CBS says it has chosen not to run a proposed commercial for a gay dating Web site during next month's Super Bowl.

EW.com said the advertisement for ManCrunch.com shows two men kissing after their hands touch while reaching into a bowl of potato chips as they watch a football game on television.

"After reviewing the ad -- which is entirely commercial in nature -- our Standards and Practices department decided not to accept this particular spot," CBS said in a statement Friday. "As always, we are open to working with the client on alternative submissions."

CBS also noted it had difficulty verifying the dating Web site's credit status, something the network said would have to be rectified if the company were to propose another commercial to air during the Super Bowl, when 30-second spots reportedly cost about $2.6 million.

Elissa Buchter, a ManCrunch.com spokeswoman, told EW.com her company is "totally of the opinion the ad was rejected due to the homosexual content."

"The creative is PG-rated and doesn't feature any tongue or overt sexuality," Buchter added.

Do you think their decision appropriate, or is this an example of discrimination?

[Solon]

I'm not sure quite whether this is politics, but regardless:


A television station refused to air an add for a gay dating site during the superbowl.

Article below(from msn news):

NEW YORK, Jan. 29 (UPI) -- The U.S. television network CBS says it has chosen not to run a proposed commercial for a gay dating Web site during next month's Super Bowl.

EW.com said the advertisement for ManCrunch.com shows two men kissing after their hands touch while reaching into a bowl of potato chips as they watch a football game on television.

"After reviewing the ad -- which is entirely commercial in nature -- our Standards and Practices department decided not to accept this particular spot," CBS said in a statement Friday. "As always, we are open to working with the client on alternative submissions."

CBS also noted it had difficulty verifying the dating Web site's credit status, something the network said would have to be rectified if the company were to propose another commercial to air during the Super Bowl, when 30-second spots reportedly cost about $2.6 million.

Elissa Buchter, a ManCrunch.com spokeswoman, told EW.com her company is "totally of the opinion the ad was rejected due to the homosexual content."

"The creative is PG-rated and doesn't feature any tongue or overt sexuality," Buchter added.

Do you think their decision appropriate, or is this an example of discrimination?

It's appropriate from the view of the shareholders of CBS, to whom the decision makers are responsible. It is also an example of discrimination. It was almost certainly pulled because of the homosexual content, not because of the content itself or any personal objection, but rather a calculation based upon their projected target audience in the time frame and lots of stereotypes about gays, and homophobia in general. They may also have calculated in backlash from the very vocal conservative minority who would make trouble for them and decided that the gay community was likely to cause them less overt trouble in the short term when factoring in the demographics of their normal viewing audience. That's my guess with the little information I have, so be sure to add a heaping helping of salt to go with it.

[cnorman18]

I'm not sure quite whether this is politics, but regardless:


A television station refused to air an add for a gay dating site during the superbowl.

Article below(from msn news):

NEW YORK, Jan. 29 (UPI) -- The U.S. television network CBS says it has chosen not to run a proposed commercial for a gay dating Web site during next month's Super Bowl.

EW.com said the advertisement for ManCrunch.com shows two men kissing after their hands touch while reaching into a bowl of potato chips as they watch a football game on television.

"After reviewing the ad -- which is entirely commercial in nature -- our Standards and Practices department decided not to accept this particular spot," CBS said in a statement Friday. "As always, we are open to working with the client on alternative submissions."

CBS also noted it had difficulty verifying the dating Web site's credit status, something the network said would have to be rectified if the company were to propose another commercial to air during the Super Bowl, when 30-second spots reportedly cost about $2.6 million.

Elissa Buchter, a ManCrunch.com spokeswoman, told EW.com her company is "totally of the opinion the ad was rejected due to the homosexual content."

"The creative is PG-rated and doesn't feature any tongue or overt sexuality," Buchter added.

Do you think their decision appropriate, or is this an example of discrimination?

It's appropriate from the view of the shareholders of CBS, to whom the decision makers are responsible. It is also an example of discrimination. It was almost certainly pulled because of the homosexual content, not because of the content itself or any personal objection, but rather a calculation based upon their projected target audience in the time frame and lots of stereotypes about gays, and homophobia in general. They may also have calculated in backlash from the very vocal conservative minority who would make trouble for them and decided that the gay community was likely to cause them less overt trouble in the short term when factoring in the demographics of their normal viewing audience. That's my guess with the little information I have, so be sure to add a heaping helping of salt to go with it.

That sounds right to me. It's not about personal prejudice, it's about a hard-nosed commercial decision.

Morally, that's irrelevant. Condoning prejudice by catering to it is as bad, or worse, than prejudice itself. Worse, precisely because it IS a cold-blooded decision. "So we'll design our programming to be inoffensive to bigots, because there are more bigots than there are gays. If we treat gays with justice and equality, we'll tick off the bigots, we'll lose money. That's more important than whether or not it's right and what kind of world we're helping to make."

Give me an honest redneck queer-hater anytime over one that knows it's wrong but kisses the butts of those who feel that way anyway, for money and nothing else. Yeesh. If that's not selling your soul, what would selling your soul look like?

[FinalEnigma]

I'm not sure quite whether this is politics, but regardless:


A television station refused to air an add for a gay dating site during the superbowl.

Article below(from msn news):

NEW YORK, Jan. 29 (UPI) -- The U.S. television network CBS says it has chosen not to run a proposed commercial for a gay dating Web site during next month's Super Bowl.

EW.com said the advertisement for ManCrunch.com shows two men kissing after their hands touch while reaching into a bowl of potato chips as they watch a football game on television.

"After reviewing the ad -- which is entirely commercial in nature -- our Standards and Practices department decided not to accept this particular spot," CBS said in a statement Friday. "As always, we are open to working with the client on alternative submissions."

CBS also noted it had difficulty verifying the dating Web site's credit status, something the network said would have to be rectified if the company were to propose another commercial to air during the Super Bowl, when 30-second spots reportedly cost about $2.6 million.

Elissa Buchter, a ManCrunch.com spokeswoman, told EW.com her company is "totally of the opinion the ad was rejected due to the homosexual content."

"The creative is PG-rated and doesn't feature any tongue or overt sexuality," Buchter added.

Do you think their decision appropriate, or is this an example of discrimination?

It's appropriate from the view of the shareholders of CBS, to whom the decision makers are responsible. It is also an example of discrimination. It was almost certainly pulled because of the homosexual content, not because of the content itself or any personal objection, but rather a calculation based upon their projected target audience in the time frame and lots of stereotypes about gays, and homophobia in general. They may also have calculated in backlash from the very vocal conservative minority who would make trouble for them and decided that the gay community was likely to cause them less overt trouble in the short term when factoring in the demographics of their normal viewing audience. That's my guess with the little information I have, so be sure to add a heaping helping of salt to go with it.

That sounds right to me. It's not about personal prejudice, it's about a hard-nosed commercial decision.

Morally, that's irrelevant. Condoning prejudice by catering to it is as bad, or worse, than prejudice itself. Worse, precisely because it IS a cold-blooded decision. "So we'll design our programming to be inoffensive to bigots, because there are more bigots than there are gays. If we treat gays with justice and equality, we'll tick off the bigots, we'll lose money. That's more important than whether or not it's right and what kind of world we're helping to make."

Give me an honest redneck queer-hater anytime over one that knows it's wrong but kisses the butts of those who feel that way anyway, for money and nothing else. Yeesh. If that's not selling your soul, what would selling your soul look like?

I agree of course, though I will note that it is likely the people making these decisions would lose their jobs if the didn't cater to common prejudice.

though I would have one heck of a hard time at a job that required me to do that.

[cnorman18]

I'm not sure quite whether this is politics, but regardless:


A television station refused to air an add for a gay dating site during the superbowl.

Article below(from msn news):

NEW YORK, Jan. 29 (UPI) -- The U.S. television network CBS says it has chosen not to run a proposed commercial for a gay dating Web site during next month's Super Bowl.

EW.com said the advertisement for ManCrunch.com shows two men kissing after their hands touch while reaching into a bowl of potato chips as they watch a football game on television.

"After reviewing the ad -- which is entirely commercial in nature -- our Standards and Practices department decided not to accept this particular spot," CBS said in a statement Friday. "As always, we are open to working with the client on alternative submissions."

CBS also noted it had difficulty verifying the dating Web site's credit status, something the network said would have to be rectified if the company were to propose another commercial to air during the Super Bowl, when 30-second spots reportedly cost about $2.6 million.

Elissa Buchter, a ManCrunch.com spokeswoman, told EW.com her company is "totally of the opinion the ad was rejected due to the homosexual content."

"The creative is PG-rated and doesn't feature any tongue or overt sexuality," Buchter added.

Do you think their decision appropriate, or is this an example of discrimination?

It's appropriate from the view of the shareholders of CBS, to whom the decision makers are responsible. It is also an example of discrimination. It was almost certainly pulled because of the homosexual content, not because of the content itself or any personal objection, but rather a calculation based upon their projected target audience in the time frame and lots of stereotypes about gays, and homophobia in general. They may also have calculated in backlash from the very vocal conservative minority who would make trouble for them and decided that the gay community was likely to cause them less overt trouble in the short term when factoring in the demographics of their normal viewing audience. That's my guess with the little information I have, so be sure to add a heaping helping of salt to go with it.

That sounds right to me. It's not about personal prejudice, it's about a hard-nosed commercial decision.

Morally, that's irrelevant. Condoning prejudice by catering to it is as bad, or worse, than prejudice itself. Worse, precisely because it IS a cold-blooded decision. "So we'll design our programming to be inoffensive to bigots, because there are more bigots than there are gays. If we treat gays with justice and equality, we'll tick off the bigots, we'll lose money. That's more important than whether or not it's right and what kind of world we're helping to make."

Give me an honest redneck queer-hater anytime over one that knows it's wrong but kisses the butts of those who feel that way anyway, for money and nothing else. Yeesh. If that's not selling your soul, what would selling your soul look like?

I agree of course, though I will note that it is likely the people making these decisions would lose their jobs if the didn't cater to common prejudice.

though I would have one heck of a hard time at a job that required me to do that.

The tragedy is that so many sell their souls so cheap, and that there are so many willing to take your place if you won't. Whatever. There are jobs where you don't have to put your integrity on hold, and people who have integrity will find them.

This sort of thing is how things like institutional racism can hang around long after it becomes illegal and even unacceptable among polite, educated and civilized people. How many TV shows resisted casting blacks in major roles for reasons similar to these? How do we judge those TV executives who knew this was wrong, but went along anyway - which, let us charitably presume, would be virtually all of them?

How do we feel about the TV execs who are condoning and supporting homophobia now?

[micatala]

I'm not sure quite whether this is politics, but regardless:


A television station refused to air an add for a gay dating site during the superbowl.

Article below(from msn news):

NEW YORK, Jan. 29 (UPI) -- The U.S. television network CBS says it has chosen not to run a proposed commercial for a gay dating Web site during next month's Super Bowl.

EW.com said the advertisement for ManCrunch.com shows two men kissing after their hands touch while reaching into a bowl of potato chips as they watch a football game on television.

"After reviewing the ad -- which is entirely commercial in nature -- our Standards and Practices department decided not to accept this particular spot," CBS said in a statement Friday. "As always, we are open to working with the client on alternative submissions."

CBS also noted it had difficulty verifying the dating Web site's credit status, something the network said would have to be rectified if the company were to propose another commercial to air during the Super Bowl, when 30-second spots reportedly cost about $2.6 million.

Elissa Buchter, a ManCrunch.com spokeswoman, told EW.com her company is "totally of the opinion the ad was rejected due to the homosexual content."

"The creative is PG-rated and doesn't feature any tongue or overt sexuality," Buchter added.

Do you think their decision appropriate, or is this an example of discrimination?

It's appropriate from the view of the shareholders of CBS, to whom the decision makers are responsible. It is also an example of discrimination. It was almost certainly pulled because of the homosexual content, not because of the content itself or any personal objection, but rather a calculation based upon their projected target audience in the time frame and lots of stereotypes about gays, and homophobia in general. They may also have calculated in backlash from the very vocal conservative minority who would make trouble for them and decided that the gay community was likely to cause them less overt trouble in the short term when factoring in the demographics of their normal viewing audience. That's my guess with the little information I have, so be sure to add a heaping helping of salt to go with it.

That sounds right to me. It's not about personal prejudice, it's about a hard-nosed commercial decision.

Morally, that's irrelevant. Condoning prejudice by catering to it is as bad, or worse, than prejudice itself. Worse, precisely because it IS a cold-blooded decision. "So we'll design our programming to be inoffensive to bigots, because there are more bigots than there are gays. If we treat gays with justice and equality, we'll tick off the bigots, we'll lose money. That's more important than whether or not it's right and what kind of world we're helping to make."

Give me an honest redneck queer-hater anytime over one that knows it's wrong but kisses the butts of those who feel that way anyway, for money and nothing else. Yeesh. If that's not selling your soul, what would selling your soul look like?

I would largely agree. The networks tend to shy away from what is controversial in many contexts. It is ironic that, as I understand, they have decided to air the contoversial Tim Tebow pro-life ad.

http://www.catholic.org/national/nation ... p?id=35301

One wonders if they are simply trying to avoid controversy, why air either ad?

Are they going to deny e-harmony an ad?

One could certainly speculate they will tick off more people or receive more intense objections, on the gay ad than the pro-life ad. On the other hand, the pro-choice position is not exactly a small minority position and a goodly number of them are already expressing their displeasure.


Personally, I don't see why CBS should block either ad. Why should the ad policy for the Super Bowl be any different than any other hour of the day?


And when one considers the other types of ads that are likely to appear, I find this decision even more ridiculous. There are sure to be over-sexualized promos for beer and TV programming, and probably Viagra and Cialis, and who knows what else. Does CBS not think that huge numbers of "family viewers" also find these kinds of ads offensive? Why is it OK to say "erectile disfunction" and have two supposedly naked people of the opposite sex sitting in bath tubs under the clear blue sky but it is not OK to show mild affection between a couple of gay guys? It's not like the networks don't have any gay characters in their other shows.

[East of Eden]

The networks are free to air whatever ads they want to. They are running the Tim Tebow ad, but they would have been free not to. Those that don't like it can boycott the network.

[FinalEnigma]

The networks are free to air whatever ads they want to. They are running the Tim Tebow ad, but they would have been free not to. Those that don't like it can boycott the network.

of course they can technically do it, though I think possibly a case might be made for discrimination in court, I have no idea of the relevant laws, but that wasn't the question. The question was whether it is appropriate to refuse to show the add or whether it was discrimination.
people obviously can discriminate against others, but if they do, I'd call it wrong.

[Kral]

I have no interest in seeing this commercial and I personally find the image of two men kissing in a lover-like fashion to be a bit nauseating (women on the other hand...). That said if they are going to air the Tebow ad which will likely offend many people as well then I think they should air this one too.

I still respect the right of a privately owned network to control what is shown on their channel(s) though. Were it on a public network I would have greater issue with this.