Super Bowl: Are you ready for some religion?

Posted at 2:24 PM on January 26, 2010 by Bob Collins (13 Comments)
Filed under: Media

Usually the discussion about Super Bowl TV ads is reserved for the day after the Super Bowl.

For the last few months, I've been wondering how the nation as a whole will react to Florida quarterback Tim Tebow, a tremendously talented player (and, from all accounts, a wonderful kid) who is one part quarterback and one part preacher. When his NFL career starts next season, the league is likely to get him to tone down the religion. He might be better off with a Bible Belt team.

We don't need to wait long to find out if his "in his face" religious views will cause a controversy in the NFL. An advertisement from James Dobson's Focus on the Family organization, aimed at the Super Bowl audience, will tell of Tebow's mother's decision not to have an abortion. The baby turned out to be Tim Tebow.

Generally speaking, Super Bowl ads are politics free. A few beer ads with calmations dalmations and clydesdales, some pop superstar drinking Pepsi, and babies spitting up while selling stocks are the usual fare.

But some of the big money is pulling out of the Superbowl commercial biz, and CBS is trying to attract advocacy ads to replace them.

It's not going over well with some groups. "An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year, an event designed to bring Americans together," Jehmu Greene, president of Women's Media Center said. It and others women's groups are protesting the ad.

The irony here, of course, is that in protesting the commercial, the groups are giving the Focus on the Family message far more than it could get for the $2.5 million it costs to buy a 30-second ad in the Super Bowl.

Update. 3:05 p.m. - The Guardian (UK) points out that this ad was rejected by CBS for the Super bowl in 2004. Here are some of the other ads rejected.

---

Comments (13)

I'm not sure "giving" is the right word -- it depends on how the message lands. Personally, I think the salient point is that Tebow's mom made a DECISION. Just another word for "choice," folks.

And what if she'd made the same decision and he turned out to be just a regular kid? So-so grades, no extraordinary talents? What's the message then? Does Focus on the Family only care about you if you're set to make a boat-load of money playing pro ball?

Posted by Heather | January 26, 2010 2:50 PM

---

If Focus on the Family wants to spend their supporter's money on a Super Bowl ad, I don't see a problem.

From my understanding the ad will be of Tim and his mom. There will be no showing of aborted babies, no pictures of torn body parts, or anything "objectionable." Just people sharing their opinion.

Maybe if a few of the organizations listed below, including:

Abortion Access Project
Advocates for Youth
By Any Media Necessary
California Council of Churches IMPACT
Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF)
Feminist Press
New Prospect Family Praise and Worship Center
National Organization for Women (NOW)

and the many others joining in on this protest should get together and create a coounter ad showing the virtues (if any) of abortions.

Maybe, just maybe, these organizations are afraid that some women might just agree with the Tebow's? We wouldn't want that to happen now, would we?

Posted by Christopher | January 26, 2010 2:56 PM

---

CBS is in trouble...a lot of people only watch the dang game FOR the ads. And they aren't going to tune in for advocacy messages. Oh btw, calmation sounds like the perfect pet! I will be watching the puppy bowl again this year with the kitten half time show. You gotta see the bowlcam shots.

Posted by Bonnie | January 26, 2010 3:07 PM

---

From a media standpoint, the significance is a shift of network standards, actually. In 2004, the same network -- CBS, rejected a Super Bowl ad from MoveOn that it considered "too controversial."

The United Church of Christ tried to run an ad the same year in support of acceptance of gays. That got rejected, too, for the same reason.

More recently (2007), but not with the Super Bowl, CBS rejected ads for condoms.

I suppose it would be too cynical -- even for me -- to suggest that maybe some groups try to buy ads for the Super Bowl, knowing they'd be rejected, just so they can get some publicity by saying, "hey, CBS rejected our ad!"

Posted by Bob Collins | January 26, 2010 3:08 PM

---

>> Does Focus on the Family only care about you if you're set to make a boat-load of money playing pro ball?

It's statements like that that give internet discussion a bad name.

If that is happening here on News Cut, I don't dare to read comments on some of the lower levels of Hades the net.

Posted by JohhnyZoom | January 26, 2010 3:14 PM

---

>> just so they can get some publicity by saying, "hey, CBS rejected our ad!"

I am sure of it.

What was the event that had set up the ultrasound ad pleading with Barack Obama, which then was pulled? Before I read above that CBS is looking for advocacy ads, I was convinced the Tebow add would fall through too, but yet would end up as a publicity coup.

Posted by JohhnyZoom | January 26, 2010 3:18 PM

---

"Maybe, just maybe, these organizations are afraid that some women might just agree with the Tebow's? We wouldn't want that to happen now, would we?"

Okay, first of all, I feel bad about picking up on this comment, because the article itself is a very good discussion about network practices and whether political or religious leaning ads should be allowed during such a wide reaching and presumably neutral event.

But, I just want to point out that the protesters of these types of messages are fine with women--or anyone--agreeing with the Tebows. They understand people will decide against abortion and have religious and personal reasons for doing so. The problem arises when the message is pushed to turn into legislation which would make it illegal to disagree with them. It also may be that people are protesting because they are concerned that the precedent changing advertisement was done exclusively for Focus on the Family and similar leaning groups, especially considering the adverts that have been turned down in the past. Or, perhaps people just don't want that tripe on during their football game that is usually reserved for non-political or philosophical beer drinking time.

No one is uptight about the possibly that a woman may not want to have an abortion.

Posted by Siiri | January 26, 2010 9:51 PM

---

I think what a lot of people are uptight about is having a shift in commercial TV standards, leading to the Super Bowl becoming a battle ground of messages for the most heated social issue of the day.

The Super Bowl is, essentially, a national holiday around a football game. If it's just another place to have a boatload of politics, it changes the cultural landscape significantly.

CBS was aware of that, I'm sure, when they were rejecting issue ads as "too controversial" in the past.

Posted by Bob Collins | January 27, 2010 5:30 AM

---

My $0.02...

A lot of gay advocacy groups have been up in arms over this ad as well, and from what I've heard about its content, I don't understand why.

I totally agree with Heather's observation that it was Mrs. Tebow's choice to ignore her doctor's suggestion that an abortion might be a better option at the time. Sure, the pregancy may have ended in a miscarriage, or even in her own death, but ultimately it was her decision to make, and she made it.

Siiri's assertion that "the protesters of these types of messages are fine with women--or anyone--agreeing with the Tebows. They understand people will decide against abortion and have religious and personal reasons for doing so." *sounds* like it should be true. And maybe for many people who are protesting the ad, it is true. But I don't think it's realistic to assume it's true for all of the opponents. If it were, they wouldn't really have a reason to protest in the first place. If they are as reasonable as that statement suggests, they would simply say, "Gee, that was a pretty good way to get their message out. How can we improve the delivery of our message?" And maybe next year we'd see an ad that showcases a motherless family of 5, devastated by her death in the final weeks of her 6th pregnancy.

Re: JohhnyZoom's comment "It's statements like that that give internet discussion a bad name." I don't think that Heather's question is a really good example of low-quality discussion per se. It's more of a turning-point question. It could be a jumping off point for a gradually degenrating posts, but as a rhetorical device, it also gives us the opportunity to stop and think, "What *is* their 'focus' on? Why did they choose this particular vehicle for their message?" (In this particular case, the answer is pretty obvious: It's a football game. It makes sense to use a football player as the centerpiece of an ad touting their message.)

Posted by Brian F | January 27, 2010 8:53 AM

---

>> ... maybe some groups try to buy ads for the Super Bowl, knowing they'd be rejected, just so they can get some publicity by saying, "hey, CBS rejected our ad!"

Will this ad really be on the air? Maybe Focus On the Family doesn’t want to spend advertising money, but was just looking for “rejection publicity”.

Posted by tiredboomer | January 27, 2010 12:08 PM

---

I can't help but wonder how all the employees who were laid off from Focus on the Family feel about the organization's willingness to drop millions on a Superbowl ad.

Posted by Jennifer | January 27, 2010 1:30 PM

---

JohnnyZoom, I'm sorry you're offenced, but I don't understand why. As Brian F pointed out, that was a rhetorical question. I'm not trying to throw sand in the playground; I do wonder if the message they want to convey is actually what will come across, and if the protest publicity is truly working in their favor. I have my doubts.

Posted by Heather | January 27, 2010 3:01 PM

---

I think this ties in with the conversations about long term viability of free broadcast television. Free content isn't free. Television crews, reporters, journalists, equipment, etc. all need to be paid for.

The networks are hurting for money. Advertisers are sending their dollars in many new directions, cutting into television revenue. Standards for accepting advertisers will loosen in order to keep revenue coming.

In the long term, advocacy groups with lots of money will be the ones enabling "free" content. Content will be salted with the group's message.

Posted by kennedy | January 27, 2010 5:06 PM

---

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.

Name*:

E-mail Address*:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments*:

Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Tweet this page
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories