Ad attacks

The airwaves are public. They are not owned by the networks. As such, I believe that advocacy ads -- no matter what they advocate, short of hate, libel, and crime -- should be accepted, as long as they meet the usual broadcast standards of decency and violence. (Although I am a lot less prudish than most. But that's another matter.)

NBC, hostcaster of the upcoming Super Bowl, has rejected two ads ostensibly because they're advocacy ads. This to me is ridiculous. All ads advocate something, whether it is the eating of processed foods or the use of prescription drugs to treat ailments caused by the consumption of those processed foods.

During election campaigns, you can't flip channels without ads advocating some cause or another, not to mention candidates.And is there anything more offensive than an attack ad? Those of course would run.

The following two ads however have turned out to be no-nos this year.

The first is by PETA, the radical animal rights group that can't stop exploiting women's bodies in its campaigns to shock us out of eating meat.

Now, understand, I am all for all of us going almost, if not totally, vegan, both for environmental and humanitarian reasons. But I agree that it is just tasteless to show mostly-naked women getting up close and personal with zucchinis on a family program.

The thing is, PETA has accomplished its aims. People are talking about the ad. It's gone viral.

I am sure you can Google it so I am not embedding it here. Instead, I offer you the ladies of The View:

Now here's the surprise for regular readers of Broadsides.

Yet another advocacy ad was turned down, one that is ''pro-life'' or, as I prefer to think of it, ''anti-choice'' and ''pro-forced pregnancy.'' It's a stunning bit of production, beautifully done, very powerful and, quite frankly, I can see no reason why NBC rejected it.

Judge for yourself:

Just as I believe an ad celebrating a woman's right to choose should run, I believe that this ad should get airtime too -- especially since it appears that NBC would have accepted the PETA ad if it weren't so porny.

Five years ago, the NFL rejected an ad criticizing former President George W. Bush's fiscal policies. Turned out it was correct too. But it was happy to accept taxpayer dollars to run an anti-drug ad from the White House.

Seems to me that you go with all advocacy ads, or none.

And, like I said, because the airwaves are public, you go with them all.

Comments

[skdadl]

Found the PETA ads, and I don't get the fuss. I'm even a bit surprised at the ladies on The View -- I mean, is it possible that they lead more protected lives than I do? Ok: Liz probably does, but the others are shocked by a few peeks at a bikini and some asparagus?

I agree with you about letting them all run or none, even the ones I disagree with, and that "pro-life" ad does bother me. I know that the personal lives of public figures become grist for the sleaziest kinds of gossip, but I'm still free to feel contempt for anyone who would exploit someone else's biography to make his/her own political point, which is what that sleazy ad does. It's also illogical, as that argument always is, unless you're going to spend your days mourning the gazillions of eggs and sperm and embryos that just get washed away every second. Oh, look! There goes Queen Elizabeth III! How clumsy of me! That's not how live people come to make something of their lives, folks.

[sooey]

They would never have run an attack ad against Bush's anti-choice policies. Therefore, it would have appeared as if they were being partisan had they accepted this ad - which is clearly an attack ad against Obama's pro-choice policies - something which is also a current news topic.

[Paul]

Superbowl ads cost $3 million a pop (plus production). PETA's modus operandi is to book the time, produce an ad, and make sure the network won't run it for fear of FCC regulation fines (the FCC does not clearly define its subjective obscenity policy). Once the network dumps the ad, they are released from most of their financial obligation, and then PETA throws it to the blogosphere (which is their real target) - and the news will chat it up for the week prior, and will do so in the context of Superbowl ads. It's a lot of publicity at a fraction of the cost, and they get to portray themselves as edgy and the victim at the same time, with a nominal risk of being on the hook if the network actually accepted the ad.

PETA is the kind of organization that, without apparent provocation, posted a letter to Michael Moore on their website attacking his weight (he's not a vegetarian) and released it into the blogosphere. They typically use extremely aggressive and whimsically antagonistic tactics to create buzz out of thin air.

[Barb Pearce]

Ugh. I agree with you Antonia but I hate having to.

I keep getting the vision of my 10 year old son and 8 year old daughter watching the super bowl and the Peta commercial starts...

The kid's dialogue would go like this.
Son: "Are they trying to sell veggies?"
Daughter: "Laundry detergent, that's why she's naked, veggies don't stain skin"
Son: (jumping and pointing)"MOMMMMMM, I think she's trying to hump the pumpkin"
Daughter: "She is notttt! Only dogs do stupid. And they only hump pillows and stuffed animals...soft stuff"
Son: "Is she sticking that where I think she is?"
Daughter: "It must be body soap then, you can't put laundry soap there, it would give you a rash"

That's just what I would hear.....Imagine how the perfect body images are playing in their heads.

Good luck to me trying to get them to eat asparagus next time. Can't wait for Halloween.

[MensRightsNow]

Having steak tonight, and a hot blonde. Have a great weekend ladies!

[Antonia]

Do you like your hot blonde with everything on top, or just au naturel?

[Barb Pearce]

I'm betting the answer will be: on top of blonde with everything because it's au naturel......

[MensRightsNow]

I prefer her on top? :-)