1
   

Is Media Good Will Limited to Selected Men?

 
 
Noddy24
 
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 10:14 am
Would Jesus Ban This Ad?
By John Nichols, The Nation
Posted on December 3, 2004, Printed on December 3, 2004
http://www.alternet.org/story/20652/
Watch the ad that the networks deem too "controversial."

The Rev. John Thomas, who serves as general minister and president of the United Church of Christ (UCC), is having a hard time figuring out why the same broadcasters that profited so handsomely from airing the vicious and divisive attack advertisements during the recent presidential election are now refusing to air an advertisement from his denomination that celebrates respect for one another and inclusiveness.

"It's ironic that after a political season awash in commercials based on fear and deception by both parties seen on all the major networks, an ad with a message of welcome and inclusion would be deemed too controversial," said Thomas. "What's going on here?"

The ad in question is part of an ambitious new national campaign by the UCC to appeal to Americans who feel alienated from religion and churches, and to equip the denomination's 6,000 congregations across the U.S. to welcome newcomers. In an effort to break through the commercial clutter that clogs the arteries of broadcast and cable television, the UCC ad features an arresting image: a pair of muscle-bound bouncers standing in front of a church and telling some people they can attend while turning others away.

After people of color, a disabled man and a pair of men who might be gay are turned away, the image dissolves to a text statement that: "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we."

Then, as images of diverse couples and families appear on screen, an announcer explains that, "No matter who you are, or where you are on life's journey, you are welcome here."

It is a graceful commercial, which delivers an important message gently yet effectively - something that cannot be said of most television advertising these days. But viewers of the ABC, CBS and NBC television networks won't see it because, in this age of heightened focus on so-called "moral values," quoting Jesus on the issue of inclusion is deemed to be "too controversial."

What was controversial? Apparently, the networks don't like the ad's implication that the Nazarene's welcome to all people might actually include ALL people.

Noting that the image of one woman putting her arm around another was included in the ad, CBS announced, "Because the commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations, 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."

NBC was similarly concerned that the spot was "controversial." UCC leaders, pastors and congregation members are upset, and rightly so.

"It seems incredible to me that CBS admits it is refusing to air the commercial because of something the executive branch, the Bush administration, is doing," says Dave Moyer, conference minister for the Wisconsin Conference of the UCC. "Since when is it unacceptable to offer a different perspective?"

Moyer says that people of all religious faiths and all ideological perspectives should be concerned that the major networks - which dominate so much of the discourse in America - are seeking to narrow the dialogue.

The Rev. Curt Anderson, the pastor of the First United Church of Christ in Madison, Wis., says that people of good will should also be concerned about the message being sent to gays and lesbians in the aftermath of an election season that saw them targeted by the political right.

"I'm thinking of the LGBT folks in my church who felt so under attack after the election. They are getting hit again," explained the pastor. "This is another way where the culture, the media, makes them invisible. It is incredible that it is controversial for one woman to put her arm around another."

It is also bizarrely hypocritical. After all, the same NBC network that found the UCC ad "too controversial" airs programs such as "Will & Grace" that feature gay and lesbian characters. "We find it disturbing that the networks in question seem to have no problem exploiting gay persons through mindless comedies and titillating dramas, but when it comes to a church's loving welcome to committed gay couples, that's where they draw the line," explained the Rev. Bob Chase, director of the national UCC's communication ministry.

Chase has a point. ABC, CBS and NBC, networks that reap enormous profits from the public airwaves, are not serving the public interest. Rather, they are assaulting it by narrowing the dialogue and rejecting a message of inclusion that is sorely needed at this point in the American experiment.

© 2004 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/20652/
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,108 • Replies: 19
No top replies

 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 10:16 am
Oooh, Church of Christ is scary. Not sure if it's the one I have in mind. I'll go check.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 10:17 am
OK, no, I'm thinking of International Church of Christ.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 10:20 am
Political correctness has done an about face.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 10:23 am
It's weird.

Is there any applicable law about religious ads? I'm wary of whether this article is skewing things in a particular direction.

No, this seems pretty unambiguous:

Quote:
Noting that the image of one woman putting her arm around another was included in the ad, CBS announced, "Because the commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations, 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."


That's CBS's statement. That it's because the ad "touches on the exclusion of gay couples..."

Huh.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 10:27 am
That's what I think is bizarre. I can remember seeing ads for the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints all over the networks. Granted there was nothing as controversial as allowing one female to touch another in it (gasp) but I don't see what the big deal is. The reasons to exclude the ad seem almost entirely political.
0 Replies
 
loislane17
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 12:17 pm
Blue state rant:
CBS and NBC have simply come out of their own closets as media for the president, by the president and quaking before the president.

To actually come out and say that they didn't want to interfere with the president's proposed ban on gay marriage is an enormous statement! Of course, anyone who saw the ads they would run during the election and the slant of those ads...please.

I am so over those Networks! And although I'm a guilty pleasure watcher of Amazing Race, I will forego the pleasure and I will be boycotting their stations.

whew. that felt good. I haven't had a rant all week.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 02:41 pm
I understand from television watching friend that the ad is running but without any itty-bitty tinge of an endorsement of homosexuality.

Quote:
Noting that the image of one woman putting her arm around another was included in the ad, CBS announced, "Because the commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations, 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.


So much for the Log Cabin Republicans. So much for that big tent. I'm not a Christian, but I'm assuming that members of the UCC church can still cite, " My father's house has many mansions...." even, "My father's house has walk-out closets."
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2004 02:24 am
Unless someone fudged the CBS statement, the integrity of American TV networks -- at least one of them -- is in bigger trouble than I've thought. CBS appears to believe that a) only lesbians put their arms around each other's shoulder. (By this standard, I am a promiscuous, incestuous, bisexual with several dozen partners throughout my life). b) When a church has a policy of welcoming people into it even if those people happen to be lesbians, this is too "controversial" to be broadcast on CBS -- as opposed to the Swift Boat Veteran's ad campaign, which evidently was not. c) In a commercial, you can't mention anything that "the exectutive" has proposed an amendment about. Never mind that according to the constitution, the executive has no business at all proposing amendments to it. This is Congress's business -- and the amendment proposed there has fallen flat on its face, as well it should have. CBS appears to believe that this outcome is not significant, but the fact of the amendment being proposed is.

This is scary. Yes, it does look as if CBS's goodwill was limited to politically well-connected people.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2004 04:45 am
At first, when I read this article, my first reaction was to think that the networks were marching in lockstep to the administration's attitude towards gay people. And I was pissed. But when I thught about it more, I realized something.

The last election showed, whether the "blues" (Where the networks are located) want to admit it or not, that there is a lot of homophobia in not only the "reds", but in some of the "blues" too. The resounding defeat of gay marriage amendments clearly indicated that there are many people don't cotton to the idea of gays having the same rights as straights.

Anyhow, those same folks who want to keep gays as second class citizens buy the soap powder, the SUVs and other items that keep a network going, through ad revenue. A severe backlash from these people on account of the ad would cause problems for the networks.

Yeah, it is disgusting. It is repressive. It is taking civil rights back over a generation. And I despise the entire thing. Even though I am not a theist, I believe that a church certainly has the right to proudly advertise that they are all inclusive.

But, before everyone gets into "conspiracy theory" mode, and blames the administration on the reaction to this ad, just remember............to TV executives, the bottom line is the bottom line!

I think that a lot of angry letters to network heads might give them pause.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2004 07:16 am
FreeDuck wrote:
The reasons to exclude the ad seem almost entirely political.


It IS entirely political. That's why the CBS announcemnet mentions the "fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a constitutional amendment to define marriage". Whether any of us likes it or not the issue is a political one at the moment.

The difference betwen this ad and the ads that ran during the campaigns was that the ads for/against Kerry or Bush all had political disclaimers and the networks are required to run them under FCC and FEC rules.

None of the networks will run ads from Planned Parenthood advocating a "woman's right to choose" or from the Brady Campaign pushing for the passing of the Assult Weapons Ban or a host of other political issues (or ads from groups on the other side of these pushing the opposite views).

Once an issue becomes politicized the networks will shy away from any ads that seem to support either side of the issue.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2004 07:49 am
fishin'- Makes sense to me!
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2004 08:52 am
Phoenix32890 wrote:
At first, when I read this article, my first reaction was to think that the networks were marching in lockstep to the administration's attitude towards gay people. And I was pissed. But when I thught about it more, I realized something.

[...]

But, before everyone gets into "conspiracy theory" mode, and blames the administration on the reaction to this ad, just remember............to TV executives, the bottom line is the bottom line!

I agree, but you seem to be saying that realizing this made you less pissed off. I don't understand this. Isn't this spineless self-censorship just as contemptible and scary as a government conspiracy?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2004 08:59 am
That's kind of what I was wondering about re: laws, fishin', thanks for filling us in.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2004 09:10 am
Quote:
I agree, but you seem to be saying that realizing this made you less pissed off. I don't understand this. Isn't this spineless self-censorship just as contemptible and scary as a government conspiracy?


Thomas- I think that you just made a conceptual leap right off the cliff. Laughing

If you read my post I said:


Quote:
Yeah, it is disgusting. It is repressive. It is taking civil rights back over a generation. And I despise the entire thing. Even though I am not a theist, I believe that a church certainly has the right to proudly advertise that they are all inclusive.


Does this sound like I was less pissed?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2004 10:12 am
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Does this sound like I was less pissed?

It sounds like you're adoring it! Wink Sorry, total failure of elementary reading comprehension on my part.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2004 01:50 pm
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=40160&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2004 02:44 pm
(sort-of cross posted(i.e. paraphrased) from mhy opinion expressed on the other thread)

Don't be naive. This is a ingenious publicity stunt by the United Church of Christ. This ad was subtle, but without question it was designed to be controversial.

Look at the ad. It contains two men holding hands being turned away from church. In all the righteous indignation being expressed toward the networds, can anyone see why this ad may be considered controversial?

Now, I give a hearty "bravo" to the marketing genius who thought up this stunt. I agree with the message and think inclusive religion is worth it.

But this ad was designed to be rejected.

In that light the exaggerated angry tirades aimed toward the networks seem both excessive and insincere.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2004 02:57 pm
fishin' wrote:
The difference betwen this ad and the ads that ran during the campaigns was that the ads for/against Kerry or Bush all had political disclaimers and the networks are required to run them under FCC and FEC rules.

Fishin -- I have thought about this, and I can see how that would protect controversial ads from the campaigns. But are you sure the networks are required to run ads from 501s like Moveon or the Swift Boat Veterans, or advertisements for controversial films like "Fahrenheit 911", or other ads from any other controversial but private initiatives? Because I'm pretty sure I've seen them broadcast those.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2004 03:22 pm
Yeah, that's what I was wondering about. I guess I just don't see why, outside of campaign finance reform laws and that, networks should be considering politics when deciding whether to air an ad or not.

I do see the point, though, that they might want to avoid controversy if the heat was already on them -- like if they had aired a news report against the administration that involved forged documents.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is Media Good Will Limited to Selected Men?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 01:34:09