Church Ad is Too Hot For American Television....

dr. what · Post by **dr. what** » 2004-12-01 10:50am

link

The United Church of Christ (UCC) plans to run a major ad campaign in December to raise public awareness of the denomination. One of the ads is meant, in the words of a UCC press release, to convey the message "that -- like Jesus -- the United Church of Christ seeks to welcome all people, regardless of ability, age, race, economic circumstance or sexual orientation."

You can see the ad here -- it features two burly bouncers turning various people away from a church service. And if you watch it you'll see that the broad message of inclusion over intolerance places a prominent emphasis on acceptance of homosexuals in the life of the church.

Yet, according to press release out this evening from the UCC, both CBS and NBC have refused to air the ad because the subject matter is "too controversial."

Again, look at the ad because the spot raises the topic in about as innocuous and uncontroversial a way as is imaginable. Homosexuality is never even broached explicitly.

(This case is similar to this instance last September when CNN refused to air an ad by the Log Cabin Republicans because it too was deemed "too controversial". In that case, at least the ad was hard-hitting. But even that feeble excuse doesn't apply in this case.)

According to the UCC press release, CBS explained its decision, in part, as follows ...

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations," reads an explanation from CBS, "and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks."

(I'm unclear on why the CBS statement would speak for CBS and UPN. And at first I wondered whether the dispute was with an affiliate or a station owner who owns both CBS and UPN affiliates. But the press release seems quite specific and clear that the ads have been rejected by both the "CBS and NBC television networks.")

If this is really the case, we seem now to be in a country where political campaigns can be waged with flurries of ads replete with demonstrable falsehoods. And yet clear and tame political speech aimed at a pressing national debate isn't acceptable.

CBS's explanation seems to rest on the preposterous argument that because the ad addresses a major public debate that that makes it "unacceptable".

Or is it just that discussing homosexuality is "unacceptable"?

Late Update: As numerous more media-consolidation-savvy TPM readers have now pointed out to, Viacom owns both CBS and UPN, thus the joint refusal to air the ad.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-01 11:04am

Promoting unity is controversial? That's new.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-12-01 11:16am

Durandal wrote:Promoting unity is controversial? That's new.

Anything that prevents the headlong stampede to the extreme Right is controversial.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-12-01 12:33pm

Anything that prevents the headlong stampede to the extreme Right is controversial.

Anything which looks like would adversly affect CBS's profit margin is too controversial. If even one of CBS's clients pulls their advertising in response to fundie pressure, airing this ad is a net loss for CBS.

And let's be honest here telling other churches that they are exclusionary is likely to engender warm feelings even though it is true. Somebody likely will be upset by the commercials and those sombodies are definately the type to launch boycotts and other consumer pressures to hurt the obvious target - CBS.

I feel quite confidant that if the KKK asked to buy a spot on CBS, they would be shot down as well. Not because the two cases are remotely similar ethically, but because airing either could negatively impact CBS's bottom line.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-01 12:41pm

CBS is doing what it believes the American people want. This is more of a statement on how fucked-up American society is right now.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-12-01 01:11pm

I really hate my country, sometimes.

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2004-12-01 04:18pm

SO according to the article the US doesn't have hard hitting adverts?
So no anti-drink driving ads? No anti-smoking ads?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-01 08:41pm

Or political ads. Obviously, the excuse is just that: a flimsy excuse. The real reason is that nobody wants to admit that religious beliefs are a sacred fucking cow in America, thanks to the mindless lock-step mentality of religious believers. You can blast people, blast ideologies, tell scurrilous lies about public figures, etc. as long as you don't criticize religious beliefs.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-12-01 08:44pm

The fucking horror of it all is that they are saying, basically, that you can't criticize discrimination.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-01 08:51pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:The fucking horror of it all is that they are saying, basically, that you can't criticize discrimination.

Of course. That would be as bad as criticizing the old Jim Crow laws 50 years ago. It would be subversive and it would suggest that the direction in which this country is heading is wrong, and we all know that this is unacceptable because the only proper place for a citizen in Jesusland is on his knees, praying to the Bush ... er, I mean, the Lord.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-12-01 08:58pm

When a country can no longer see it is doing wrong, there's issues to be resolved stat.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-12-01 08:59pm

Jeebus, is this the same CoC we have in the South? They're known for being hardcore fundies, I thought.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-12-01 09:03pm

You can't keep on like this. If polemics are shot down as being not acceptable for the greater good of society, then who knows what sort of thinking you'll get down the line 10, 20 years or so?

The Neo-Cons re bad enough, with their rise though we've seen these religious nutcases come out of the woodwork and into public view to such an extent that rather than mock them on programmes with funny foreign shows and adverts, the EU nations are scared.

The way this shit is heading, the gov't in Escape From LA is looking awfully plausible.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-12-01 10:33pm

Obviously, the excuse is just that: a flimsy excuse.

Its more of a half excuse. Yes the ads would be controversial and yes other controversial ads have made their way onto CBS. The difference here is that CBS expects this controversy to bite them in the ass whereas the others most likely will increase CBS's viewer totals.

CBS won't show ads which are controversial and which will generate backlash against CBS.

Political ads? CBS doesn't give a damn, neither republicans nor democrats are going to leverage consumer pressure against CBS or their major clients.

Anti-drunk driving ads? CBS loves those, they get positive PR. Drunks aren't about to take organized consumer action.

The only other groups in the US that can leverage anywhere near the consumer pressure that the religious bloc has are the ethnic minorities, the gun owners, and the elderly bloc. Which is also why you see the networks bend over backwards to keep those groups happy as well.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2004-12-02 12:10am

Darth Wong wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:The fucking horror of it all is that they are saying, basically, that you can't criticize discrimination.
Of course. That would be as bad as criticizing the old Jim Crow laws 50 years ago. It would be subversive and it would suggest that the direction in which this country is heading is wrong, and we all know that this is unacceptable because the only proper place for a citizen in Jesusland is on his knees, praying to the Bush ... er, I mean, the Lord.

At least when Clinton had people get on their knees it was for a constructive purpose...

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-12-02 12:12am

Drooling Iguana wrote: At least when Clinton had people get on their knees it was for a constructive purpose...

Well that was below the belt.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-12-02 12:35am

Just saw the add, didn't seem so explosive to me.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-12-02 12:41am

I also thought the alien and sedition laws were struck down by the supreame court a long time ago.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-12-02 10:17am

Joe wrote:Jeebus, is this the same CoC we have in the South? They're known for being hardcore fundies, I thought.

There are about 17 different denominations called the Church of Christ (with various other descriptors added). They run the gamut from far right to far left. I only know far-righters myself, but my cousin knows far-lefters.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-12-02 03:12pm

The ad just ran on TNT a few minutes ago. Not much to get worked up about.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-12-02 04:37pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Drooling Iguana wrote: At least when Clinton had people get on their knees it was for a constructive purpose...
Well that was below the belt.

Truth tends to be that way.