It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pro-life Superbowl Ad Rejected

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


This is about censorship on the part of NBC.

So when did NBC become a government body?


If someone is willing to put up the money to pay for the slot for a commercial - funny or not - then that slot is supposed to be for sale for everyone.

What utter rubbish.


Business Practices, Advertising Rates, and Profits. Except for the requirements concerning political advertisements (discussed at pages 13-14 of this Manual), the limits on the number of commercials that can be aired during children’s programming (see page 17), and the prohibition of advertisements over noncommercial educational stations (see pages 21-22), the Commission does not regulate a licensee’s business practices, such as its advertising rates or its profits. Rates charged for broadcast time are matters for private negotiation between sponsors and stations. Further, except for certain classes of political advertisements (see pages 13-14), station licensees have full discretion to accept or reject any advertising.

'The Public and Broadcasting: How to Get the Most Service from Your Local Station'
Federal Communications Commission, July 2008[/url]

It's America, my redblooded friend. The land of the individual freedom - and a corporation is an individual in law. It's normally a principle beloved of right-wing ideologues; did you forget that, in your excitement?




posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


I don't understand, it's OK for someone to put on a TV commercial that supports prolife, but a musician should not be able to get on TV and state his opinions about politics?

Exactly. Don't you just love the conservative mind?

Fulminate against public broadcasting, praise free enterprise to the skies, then start to whinge because it really is free.

They really should give us the vomit smiley option on ATS as well as BTS.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by Astyanax]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I'm all for free speech, and if whatever company was funding that commercial wanted to dish out all that money for the slot, we should have let them.

I would have laughed, really hard. And then probably throw up a little bit.

I wonder... Imagine... if Hitler had been aborted....

The argument can go both ways, you see.

Edit- lol! I didn't notice that vomiting had already been brought up in this thread. That's a funny one.

[edit on 2/2/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by asmeone2
 


I don't understand, it's OK for someone to put on a TV commercial that supports prolife, but a musician should not be able to get on TV and state his opinions about politics?

Exactly. Don't you just love the conservative mind?

Fulminate against public broadcasting, praise free enterprise to the skies, then start to whinge because it really is free.

They really should give us the vomit smiley option on ATS as well as BTS.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by Astyanax]


Yes, free speach really is free, whether it agrees with you... I imagine the outcry would have been ten thousand times more if there was a pro-choice add up. Many of the same people who are wining abotu this one being banned would demand that one not be aired, I'm sure.

Edit: I have a vomity smiley right here...


[edit on 2-2-2009 by asmeone2]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


I'm all for free speech, and if whatever company was funding that commercial wanted to dish out all that money for the slot, we should have let them.

Free speech is the right of the speaker, not the audience.

This right allows the Board of Directors of NBC to set policy about what they do or do not want to broadcast. In terms of standard corporate practice it also empowers the board to delegate individual decisions about the choice of broadcast material to the CEO or his designated subordinates.

If individual shareholders disagree with the CEO's decision, they may take it up with the Board at the company AGM, or, if there are enough of them to form a quorum, call an extraordinary general meeting on the subject.

Again: free speech is the right of the speaker, not the audience.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by Astyanax]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Yeah you beat me to it.

Saying "free speach" means that a corporation/person is also free not to say something.

In this case NBC chose not to run the commercial. That is their right. It is not "Free" if you force them to run the commercial.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2
Edit: I have a vomity smiley right here...

Oh, thank you kindly.

I see myself using that a lot in future...



Hey, it works!



Thanks again.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


No problem man.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2
I don't understand, it's OK for someone to put on a TV commercial that supports prolife, but a musician should not be able to get on TV and state his opinions about politics?


Not trying to be complicated here. If I disagree I'm not going to financially support it. That's the only freedom we as people/consumers have. If I don't like it, I don't buy it. If I don't want to watch it I turn the channel. Whether it's godaddy.com or 'the boss' I shouldn't be forced to watch either. If there's a pro-life commercial, you too can turn the channel.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by asmeone2
I don't understand, it's OK for someone to put on a TV commercial that supports prolife, but a musician should not be able to get on TV and state his opinions about politics?


Not trying to be complicated here. If I disagree I'm not going to financially support it. That's the only freedom we as people/consumers have. If I don't like it, I don't buy it. If I don't want to watch it I turn the channel. Whether it's godaddy.com or 'the boss' I shouldn't be forced to watch either. If there's a pro-life commercial, you too can turn the channel.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by saint4God]


My mistake. I thought you were trying to say that Springsteen should not have talked.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShAuNmAn-X
reply to post by saint4God
 

I agree with you 100% saint. A pro-choice commercial would have been on there in a heartbeat. But the Superbowl being the largest media event of the Year, you can of course expect points of view that conflict with TPTB to be censored. It's been going on for a long time.


Hmmm, how can you say that with 100% conviction? I don't recall seeing a pro-choice commercial this year. Actually, come to think of it, I don't recall EVER seeing a pro-choice or pro-life commercial of ANY type during the Super Bowls of the past.

You see, you're making a pretty bold 'ASSUMPTION' here.

Now, what irks me is the dip commercial they banned because it was too risky. hehe

Oh yeah, ads with Clinton sitting there smiling and giving messages to the masses is just a TAD BIT different than what this ad is doing. Just a tinsy winsy bit. Like a gap the length of a football field that is.

Get over it.

There were MANY commercials that were turned down. But because one commercial has a message that has a political/religious base to it gets refused you guys get all up in arms?

Find me the last political and religious based Super Bowl commercial and we can then start to debate whether this commercial should or shouldn't have been allowed a spot.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Not trying to be complicated here. If I disagree I'm not going to financially support it. That's the only freedom we as people/consumers have. If I don't like it, I don't buy it. If I don't want to watch it I turn the channel. Whether it's godaddy.com or 'the boss' I shouldn't be forced to watch either. If there's a pro-life commercial, you too can turn the channel.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by saint4God]


You are missing the point completely. COM...PLETE....LEEEEEEEEE

I value your posts because I think you have a wonderful heart. You are truly one of the most inspirational (from a religious standpoint) writers on this site. However, you are looking at this with the common blinders on.

You aren't looking at it the way the CEO of NBC or the NFL have to. They are here to make money. But that isn't even the point either. This commercial was poltically and relgiously motivated.

Now, as I stated in my last post. Find me a commercial from ANY of the previous 20 Super Bowls where there was a blatantly political or religious message like this one and we can begin to debate whether them saying no to this one is right or wrong.

THEY DON'T WANT THEIR CUSTOMERS TO THINK THAT THEY HAVE TO TURN OFF THEIR TVs IF THEY SEE SOMETHING THEY DON'T LIKE. Do you understand that part of the marketing aspect of the game?



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
What i think is absolutely humorous in this thread is the number of posts from people requesting the mind numbing drivel. the whole "i don't want to have to think and keep me medicated" mentality is why this country is going to the dumper.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by dariousg
This commercial was poltically and relgiously motivated.


Springsteen is politically motivated and he had his show on for a lot longer than any commercial. True he didn't preach at the superbowl but if you become his fan you'll hear it. If you buy his CD's you'll support it. I won't get into tv's religious motivations, but they usually involve painting an unintelligent picture of who believers in God are.


Originally posted by dariousg
Do you understand that part of the marketing aspect of the game?


Having worked at two marketing banks for a decade, I can say I'm pretty well versed on how advertising, funding and selling works. Did you know one of the mutli-national banks I worked for lobbied/funded (not loans, but 'gifts' and contributions) BOTH candidates in the 2004 election? Pretty curious as to why they'd do something like that, but the reasoning is because they wanted a 'win-win' scenario for themselves. Now, we can call the bank 'unbiased' for doing so just as if the primary concern for the network was money (which it clearly is not) would equally be 'unbiased' by accepting money from any contributor. I don't like this kind of unbiased approach and think there should be a filter for decorum, but hey, it's not my show
. We can however, conclude that NBC is not without their own agenda given their rejection of fiscal offer.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by saint4God]




top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join