When I was growing up some advocacy group, or several of them (I don't know if it was government funded or not, and frankly, at that time in my life I wouldn't have known the difference)used to run these ads or messages or whatever you call them.
Typical plot line: group of white kids are playing, and off to the side is some lonely and forsaken Black kid (we didn't have African-Americans back then), they stop and one of the white kids invites him to join in... and they all play happily ever after in racially tolerant bliss.
There was a moral message. That was the whole point. That there was always room for one more who was 'different' or inconvenient or whatever. And if more kids would heed the message, the whole world could be a more inclusive place.
What could be wrong with that?
Sure, the ads were preaching a morality point, one deemed morally superior to their creators. It was all good.
After all, nobody was forcing me to be nice to Black kids.
And few could argue against the point that just maybe it might do the world some good if I felt morally compelled to be nice to a Black kid, even if only for the hell of it.
Something similar is happening again. You've probably heard about it by now. Though I haven't seen the ad myself, supposedly it is going to run during the Super Bowl.
It features Tim Tebow's mother recalling her struggles with a difficult and life threatening pregnancy, how she chose to take the risks and bring her child to term, and how we now have the gifted Tim Tebow as a result.
Seems this ad is controversial.
But I see nothing here that is any different than the ads I grew up with: a message of inclusiveness, acceptance and love. An appeal to the greater moral good that, we hope, dwells within every ordinarily common person.
What is wrong with that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
What's wrong with that? Two things, apparently.
1) It threatens someone else's point of view.
2) They perceive it as an attractive message that might influence people's opinion.
Gino, you are so controversial lately!
I guess you could say people who oppose abortion wouldn't find *anything* wrong with that. (But do they all really want to rail about abortion during the Superbowl?)
The thing is, your argument would be seen by people who support abortion rights as ironic, because they believe that forcing the use of women's uteruses is the opposite of inclusiveness (and acceptance, and love). It's saying that only people who believe in a certain religion should be allowed to make the laws in this country. How inclusive and accepting is that?
And abortion IS a religious issue.
Further, pro-choicers believe that it's ironic that those who oppose abortion are constantly celebrating women who made the choice to have a baby. They were allowed to make the choice, and the made the choice that worked for them. Pro-choice isn't about "let's have as many abortions as possible!" It's about just that - the choice.
Aside from all that, the reasoning that all women who choose not to abort will inevitably emit pro-sports stars from their birth canals is flawed at best. Just look around.
The Tebow argument works the other way, too. Would it be nice if Hitler's mother would have chosen to abort him? Etc.
Although this is one political issue - the commercial, that is - that I refuse to get worked up about at the moment. I am taking a break from caring about politics. At least for this week. Passion is stressful.
thank you, amanda.
your comments are appreciated, and i do 'listen' to them, even if i still come to a different conclusion.
i know you think abortion is a resligious issue, but it no more is than civil rights or racism, and to me, they are all about human dignity and worth, and not so religious at all.
but then again, i know that itself is a moral ideal, and ofetn hard to separate from what some would lable 'religion'.
"...they believe that forcing the use of women's uteruses..."
What the heck do you think you are saying?
....
"...all about human dignity and worth, and not so religious at all."
Bingo!
At what time should the government protect human life? 18 days? 18 weeks? 18 months? 18 years?
....
I see the Tebow ad as a celebration of life and success after a difficult but correct decision.
This is a variety of the "gored ox" syndrome. You know, the one where when "my" guy gets de-pantsed in the news "the media" is biased for my guy's opponent? Kind of the same thing in a way. Because if it was a pro-abortion ad the anti-abortion people would be all worked up about it and "how could they DO that" and blah blah blah.
In my hubris-based, over-inflated opinion if you want your ad on the Super Bowl... go. and. do. that. And if you don't do that then quit your bitching.
I promise you... believe me when I say... if this year's party is the same as the usual Super Bowl parties I go to every year...? No one is going to give a rat's ass by halftime.
I think it'll be a downer - whether it is good or not - because no one is going to want to be reminded, in the middle of their escapism and watching for "the winning commercials", about this kind of thing.
If I were the people running the ad I'd think twice. If I were the people opposing the ad I'd shut the fuck up.
It seems to me that the issue in this particular case is that in our diverse society, one group wants to shut out another group's right and opportunity to advocate it's position. Ironically, the pro-choice/anti-free speech group attempts this by branding their opposition as hateful and divisive - not that there's anything hateful or divisive in saying someone doesn't have a right to make their case.
And, in what we can read about the commercial so far, the case that the Tebows make is that letting a child live can bring unexpected (and expected) blessings. They don't say that those who abort are going to burn in fires of socialized medicine. They have a positive story and make their case and the viewer can choose to ignore it, change the channel, or consider the source, just as they do with commercials featuring half-naked women, toxic liquids and not-so-subtle encouragement to exceed the speed limit in your new, powerful automobile. Or perhaps someone watching the commercial might get the impulse to look across the room and say, "Thanks, Mom."
But if that's too discomforting, perhaps the National Organization for Some Women or a similar group can buy their own time and have Whoopi Goldberg go on and talk about how multiple abortions have helped her become who she is today and let the viewer evaluate her position as well. Some will sympathize with the Tebows and others with Whoopi or another celeb who isn't concerned with how her story might affect her image or endorsements (and why might that be?). What a country!
A few years back I seem to recall that some arm of the Leviathan (I think it was the ONDCP) ran an ad during the Superbowl that basically accused marijuana smokers of funding terrorism.
(I'm sure it was sandwiched between car ads.)
Anyway, I've often since wondered that if the Marijuana Policy Project ever decided to make an advocacy ad for the Superbowl, would the network run it in such a high-profile slot? Or would it be deemed too "controversial"?
(For the record, I'm all for anyone making whatever the hell ad they want, paying to have it broadcast, and a network deciding what they do and don't want to show, for whatever the hell reason they decide.)
Brian: i'm all in with you on your last paragraph.
some comment head was saying the main reason the network went with this ad in question was the money.
all networks, even radio, are struggling right now to sell ad time.
and a thank you to all for keeping this one civil. :)
shut up gino.
"National Organization for Some Women" (snerk--points for NW!)
Post a Comment