By GottaLaff
One ad in particular was targeted for having racist undertones. Hazlett opined that Super Bowl ads bomb when they are politically divisive. Divisive ads just won't do, they're a big no-no. She was emphatic about that.
However.
Not a word was uttered about the Focus on the Family's anti-choice spot. The very same one that Preachy McFacebook defended. Not. One. Word.
Call me crazy, but IMHO, the Tebow ad is just a tad politically divisive.
Which brings me to Tim Rutten's take:
The Super Bowl, which is this country's most-watched television event, also has evolved into the world's premier showcase for video advertising. Until now, though, the networks always have declined to accept issue-oriented or political spots. In recent years, for example, they've turned down ads from the liberal activist group MoveOn.org and the United Church of Christ. [...]
Tim Tebow, and his mother, Pam [...] will describe how, while working as a missionary in the Philippines and seven months pregnant with Tim, she contracted dysentery and fell into a coma. When she awoke, according to her account, doctors said the drugs they'd used to treat her virtually guaranteed a life-threatening stillbirth. They advised an abortion. She declined out of religious conviction.
So she made a--Oh, what's that word again? Oh yeah-- choice.
Is there really a difference between this sort of Super Bowl ad and the other 60-odd trying to sell you beer or cars or computers? Yes. One is a pitch; the other is proselytizing. We suffer the former as the price of life in a consumer society; we abhor the latter as a coarse invasion of privacy. There are moments when we open ourselves to moral persuasion, and moments when we're entitled to simple recreation. It's the sort of distinction on which civility relies. [...]
The Tebows' story is a tribute to this country's respect for choice -- though somebody else will have to pay to get that message across.
Unless, of course, their message is rejected.
.jpg)