Feb 14 2010

Much ado about…. something…. but not what they thought

Category: abortion,left,media,societyharmonicminer @ 9:49 am

That’s It? Tebow Ad Unmasks the Abortion Movement

In the days running up to last weekend’s Super Bowl, the media and blogosphere erupted in a frenzy of debate over an innocuous pro-life ad sponsored by Focus on the Family. The news was that 2007 Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother Pam would be featured in a “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life” spot, which, it was assumed, would tell the story of Tim, “the miracle baby” whose mother refused an abortion during a difficult pregnancy. Missionaries in the Philippines, Pam and Bob Tebow refused to choose the doctor-advised abortion option, although Pam had been taking heavy medication following a bout with dysentery.
Without seeing the ad – and with very little information – groups like Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and NOW (National Organization for Women) responded with a fury that awakened mainstream America. Expecting the ad to convey an anti-abortion message, they demanded CBS remove it from airing. A protest letter, penned by the Women’s Media Center, suggested the ad be refused because it was sponsored by Focus on the Family. “By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers,” the letter said. Jemhu Greene, president of the group, said, “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.”
The characters of both Tim and Pam were maligned and subjected to malicious gossip. A charge by feminist Gloria Allred that Pam Tebow was a liar grew wings of its own as it spread throughout talk radio and the Internet. Allred based her charge on the fact that abortion was illegal in the strongly Catholic nation of the Philippines. An ESPN columnist warned Tim not to be manipulated by the far right. “Tebow is not an innocent, and he does not appear to be deluded. He may agree with everything Focus on the Family represents. But he’s still a young man, still breathing the fumes of a home-schooled background with two parents who believe in the inerrancy of every single word of the Bible. Now, they could be right and I could be wrong on the Bible thing – although it’s going to be hard to convince me the whole belly-of-the-whale thing wasn’t allegory – but he could be setting himself up to be associated with causes and beliefs that may not be his own. All the qualities that make him admirable – earnestness, devotion, a willingness to expound on his beliefs – make him vulnerable.”
Both CBS and Focus on the Family assured audiences that the ad had been approved and was suitable for broadcast. Yet the nation was drawn into this debate, as the life issue made its way onto business and sports pages, talk radio, and Facebook pages. Over 250,000 “fans” joined one Facebook group supporting the commercial. Surveys found support for CBS to run the commercial outnumbering its opposition.

Much more at the link above. And it reveals the Left for what it is… essentially totalitarian and against free speech, interested in muzzling anyone who disagrees, and believing that they should be able to suppress a message just because of its source….  or its content.

33 Responses to “Much ado about…. something…. but not what they thought”

  1. dave says:

    essentially totalitarian and against free speech

    First of all, free speech just means that one has the right to say whatever they want without criminal penalty (which doesn’t really exist). Free speech is NOT the right to say whatever you want where ever you want, such as on TV, without other people complaining about it.

    Second, since you are such a proponent of “free speech,” does this mean that you disagree with CBS’s decision to NOT show a gay dating site commercial? And you were also opposed to CBS not running ads previously from PETA, MoveOn, and UCC?

    I personally have no problem with the Focus on the Family/Tebow ad. What I do have a problem with is when CBS claims to not run advocacy ads, and then runs this ad (which clearly is/was advocacy) but doesn’t run a gay dating site ad (which clearly wasn’t advocacy).

    The hypocrisy of CBS was what I didn’t like.

  2. Bob says:

    Dave, not sure why you think CBS was being hypocritical. They can and should have control over which advertisments are shown on their station, and they deemed that certain ads (some from godaddy.com, the gay dating site, etc) would do more harm to their station and programming than good. On the other hand, they decided that the Focus on the Family commercial would not. Now, we can all disagree on whether we think they are correct, but as a business concerned primarily with the bottom line, it is their perogative to make these decisions. Sure, there are other factors at play, (FCC regulations, etc) but CBS should be able to do what it wants to do with its programming, within certain perameters.

    What was really missing from the dialogue around this issue was the outrage against the accusation that CBS was breaking ground by airing an ad that had “moral content”. Really? You don’t think half naked females, alcohol, et al are promoting a certain kind of “moral content”? Super Bowl commercials are always wandering into this realm. The Tebow ad is merely the first time that a majority of the media and mainstream America took notice.

  3. dave says:

    They can and should have control over which advertisments are shown on their station

    I agree… they do have the right to run what they want. I never said anything different than that. It is not really the decision in itself that matters though, but instead it is the own network’s rationality for the decisions.

    The fact that they say they don’t run advocacy ads, but then run an advocacy ad, is utter hypocrisy. It is that simple. They choose to run advocacy ads when they so please, but then use the “advocacy” argument against other ones, which just seem to all be from more progressive organizations.

  4. Punisher says:

    Except that the Tebow ads that ran didn’t advocate anything at all. CBS obviously did not let the ads go into advocating realm. The pro-choicer complaints there fall apart.

    Not to mention CBS apparently did allow pro-choicers to run their own ads, but rather than cuff up the money to do so, they prefer to whine and attack, so they can play victim card some more. The real hypocrites remain the pro-choicers in this case.

  5. saxman says:

    I think the best thing about this ad was that it got people discussing some critical issues – abortion, free speach, violence as well as showing some true colors of various groups and organizations.

    Some of my observations – people were all waiting for this heavy handed – or emotional plea for Right to Life. The most common comment following – I don’t understand what the big deal was.

    Comments from “America Left Radio” – It isn’t what they said – it was an attempt to con you into looking at their website. We need to censor not just what is said – but the ideologies of those doing the saying. (Wouldn’t that open up a can of worms)

    NOW – Appauled at the Violence against Women shown in this ad. (Interesting that tackling Betty White was not included – why not I wonder?)

    Dave – I am trying to understand what you are saying in the statement “Free speech is NOT the right to say whatever you want where ever you want, such as on TV, without other people complaining about it.” Are you saying that people don’t have the right to say whatever they want on TV – Or that if they do – others have the right to complain about it? I am uncertain of your intended meaning.

    I am also confused about running Advocacy vs. Non-Advocacy Ads. I looked up the word and found the following ” –noun, plural -cies. the act of pleading for, supporting, or recommending; active espousal “. To me this is the very purpose of an advertisement. Do they exist for any other purpose?

  6. amuzikman says:

    The entire discussion about CBS, while interesting, is a tangent to the subject of the post. The real hypocrisy here is from the left. For if someone was truly “pro-choice” then it would follow that the interest would be in seeing to it that each and every pregnant woman was as fully informed as possible on ALL options for the unborn child they carry. But this ad rather brilliantly revealed the above-mentioned organizations for exactly what they are – pro-abortion. They are abortion merchants, with only the perpetuation of as many abortions as possible as their goal. Choice only matters to them insomuch as the “choice” is abortion and any attempts to persuade a woman to make another choice is met with this type of vilification.

  7. harmonicminer says:

    There is a difference between the right to complain about something that was aired, and the attempt to stop it from every being aired in the first place, based on its origin or content. There are certainly some things that should not be aired… but it’s hard to take seriously that the affirmation of the value of motherhood (obviously includes deciding not to kill your unborn child) is a great danger to society.

    Essentially, CBS made a calculation. I am pleased that CBS thinks it would get more backlash from running the (from my perspective) less desirable ads than from running the Focus on the Family ad. If CBS’s calculation was that one was more to its benefit than the other, and if that calculation was accurate, it says good things about our society… at least that part of it that watches the SuperBowl.

  8. Mr. Music Lover says:

    This “uprising” by the left shows that “Pro-choice” is a misnomer. They are NOT pro choice they are pro-death. Choice, Gay, Diversity, are just examples of the left changing the true meaning of words to give their movement an appearance of good. In reality they drip evil from every pore.

  9. harmonicminer says:

    Come to think of it, in the spirit of William F. Buckley’s preference for being governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory rather than the faculty of Harvard, I think, on balance, that I’d probably rather be governed by the aggregate political preferences of all those who watched the SuperBowl. I think the center-right would prevail.

    I’m pretty sure more SuperBowl watchers felt affirmed in their beliefs by the Focus on the Family ad than by some of the other options that were considered.

  10. Melody says:

    I have yet to meet anyone claiming to be ‘pro-choice’ who has not been sexually promiscuous or closely connected to someone who is. Abortion exists for one reason only and that is to allow promiscous men (and even some women, though they engage sexually for different reasons) to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. I have met numerous women who have chosen to allow the life of the child they bore resulting from rape state that the decision was the best of their life. I have known women who chose abortion who are spending the rest of their life in regret. Free speech is not without consequences and free will is not without consequences. Oxymoron of the century – Pro-choice Chirstian.

  11. dave says:

    Are you saying that people don’t have the right to say whatever they want on TV – Or that if they do – others have the right to complain about it?

    There is no such thing as a freedom of speech without repercussions. Focus on the Family has freedom of speech – they have the right to say whatever they want (for the most part). But the “Left” also has the right to speak out about what Focus says. The “Left” even has the right to try and put pressure on CBS to not run CBS ad.

    And no on has the right to say whatever they want, where ever they want, whenever they want to. Private (and even public, in many cases) entities have the right to censor what ever they want if the speech is occurring on property owned by the private entity, including airwaves.

    What I mean is that I could demand CBS to air an ad that I created (and was willing to pay for), but I wouldn’t have the “right” to have it on the air. But if it did run, harmonicminer would have every right to try and force (or “encourage) CBS to not air it. And that wouldn’t mean that harmonicminer didn’t believe in free speech.

    FWIW, the Right does the exact same thing as the Left did in this situation. They constantly try to put pressure on organizations that allow messages (or people) that they don’t agree with. A perfect example is how conservative groups complain, protest, and try to stop Bill Ayers from speaking anywhere.

  12. dave says:

    I think the center-right would prevail.

    You never wrote that post about how you define center-right, and why you identify as such.

    I have yet to meet anyone claiming to be ‘pro-choice’ who has not been sexually promiscuous or closely connected to someone who is.

    Oh my… then you just haven’t met many people. And abortion exists solely for men to not take responsibility? Really?

  13. harmonicminer says:

    Sorry, Dave, I know I owe you that post. I’ll get to it at some point. Just sorta flying low lately.

  14. saxman says:

    Dave – from what I believe I understand you to be saying – I agree with you. Both right and left have a right to develop commercials and advertising. Both have an opportunity to attempt to have them aired. It is up to the station to determine if and what they will air. It is up to each individual or group to comment from their point of view.

  15. anthony says:

    The “right” generally won’t try to prevent the “left” from saying anything at all, we just like a chance to respond. The left tries to prevent discourse on abortion because they are against the Lord on it, whether they believe in him or not he is still there.

    I found it interesting that given the choice she chose not to murder her child. Isn’t that what pro choice is about? Its not pro abortion is it? If someone is fighting for a woman to have the right to have a choice about whether or not to murder their child then that implies that its ok for them to choose not to.

  16. Melody says:

    “A perfect example is how conservative groups complain, protest, and try to stop Bill Ayers from speaking anywhere.” Can you cite any examples? Are you a students of Ayers? An FBI informant close to Ayers during his “Weather Underground” days stated that, “… his [Ayers] idea that a “successful” socialist revolution in the USA would require the deaths of from 10 to 20 million Americans.” (source: Larry Grathwohl)

  17. dave says:

    Sorry, Dave, I know I owe you that post. I’ll get to it at some point. Just sorta flying low lately.

    No worries… totally understand. Just curious to see what you have to say on it.

    Can you cite any examples?

    Sure – numerous times here in IL Bill Ayers has spoken (or attempted to speak) at different institutions in IL. One example is how the current GOP Lt Gov candidate made a stink when he was in college about Ayers speaking there. It also happened last year when Ayers was going to speak at Naperville North High School, and conservatives freaked out about it. Do you want more examples? Because I could go on.

    Are you a students of Ayers?

    No. And how is that relevant to the conversation at hand? Melody – you seem incapable of staying on topic and actually talking about the issue that is being talked about.

    I know about Ayers – this post has nothing to do with his stance on anything, nor am I trying to defend him. But I am using him as a perfect example of how the Right does the exact same thing to him that the Right is complaining about with the Tebow/Focus on the Family ad.

  18. amuzikman says:

    Dave

    I read the primary topic of this blog as the Tebow ad revealing the so-called “pro-choice” crowd for the pro-abortionists they really are (See the title of the linked article). It was you who decided to shift the focus with your comments about CBS – which of course is fine. You have participated enough on this site to know the thread can wander away from the original point in any number of ways – which is also fine. In fact a discussion of resistance to Bill Ayers public speaking could also be considered not “staying on topic” except insofar as it is your topic – and that too is fine. So I’m not quite sure what your problem is with someone else who chooses to ask a sidebar-type question of you.

    And I’d actually like to hear you address the primary point. Because the right, generally speaking, is pro-life and the term pretty much means what it says. But the left, generally speaking, is pro-abortion, but uses the smokescreen of the term “pro-choice”, which as we have seen with the airing of the Tebow ad does not provide very thick smoke.

  19. dave says:

    So I’m not quite sure what your problem is with someone else who chooses to ask a sidebar-type question of you.

    Come on… Melody constantly asks some of the strangest, out-of-leftfield type of questions to me. Am I a student of Bill Ayers? Seriously?

    Because the right, generally speaking, is pro-life and the term pretty much means what it says.

    I actually strongly disagree with this. The right is anti-abortion, not pro-life. But that is a different conversation for a different time.

    But the left, generally speaking, is pro-abortion

    I disagree with this one too. The left, generally speaking, is not pro-abortion. The left, generally speaking, wants to make sure that abortion is always an option. They fear that ads like the Tebow ad would make that less likely.

    And FWIW, harmonic’s point of the post, based on his own commentary, was the “totalitarian and against free speech” nature of the left rather than the Left’s hypocrisy.

  20. Melody says:

    dave, you’ll just have to forgive me, I seem to have a weakness for yanking your chain from time to time.

  21. amuzikman says:

    Dave

    Yes, being pro life does indeed mean being anti-abortion. It also includes being anti-suicide, and anti-infanticide. Why is it so important for the word “abortion” to be included? Because the left is obsessed only with abortion, and the political power it represents. But I also note the semantics twist as implemented by the left in trying to frame the position as “anti” something rather than “pro” something – this is intentional. (So too the right has picked up on this and begun to call the left “anti-life”)

    As to your comment,

    I disagree with this one too. The left, generally speaking, is not pro-abortion. The left, generally speaking, wants to make sure that abortion is always an option. They fear that ads like the Tebow ad would make that less likely.

    I think you are simply plain wrong. And the reaction by the left to the Tebow ad is strong evidence that you are wrong. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in that ad that supports your comment. But there is visible hysteria on the left when someone perceives abortion may be challenged.

    I disagree with your comments about Melody. It seems to me her questions come out of right field – not left. 🙂

  22. anthony says:

    I find it facinating that Dave just claimed Bill Ayers as a fellow Liberal. This man is so far left that its more accurate to just call him communist. If anybody resists listening to him its probably because they are not fans of totalitarian governments or mass murders.

  23. dave says:

    Yes, being pro life does indeed mean being anti-abortion. It also includes being anti-suicide, and anti-infanticide.

    And pro-War. And pro-death penalty. But hey- who’s counting.

    I disagree with your comments about Melody. It seems to me her questions come out of right field – not left. 🙂

    Well played.

    I find it facinating that Dave just claimed Bill Ayers as a fellow Liberal.

    Huh? I didn’t claim Ayers as anything.

  24. dave says:

    dave, you’ll just have to forgive me, I seem to have a weakness for yanking your chain from time to time.

    Melody – you haven’t replied to my comments in the other thread.

  25. amuzikman says:

    And pro-War. And pro-death penalty. But hey- who’s counting.

    And this from the gentleman who took such umbrage at Melody’s question concerning Bill Ayers.

  26. dave says:

    And who brought up suicide and infanticide and what “pro-life” was?

  27. amuzikman says:

    So, Dave…

    Come on. I had thought better of you. If you don’t want to continue the thread, that’s fine – just say so. But to lob that grenade is really beneath you.

    And pro-War. And pro-death penalty. But hey- who’s counting.

    (And it was you that complained about staying on topic, not me or anyone else!)

    Are you really claiming this is germane to our discussion? And do you really acknowledge no difference between guilt and innocence on this topic? For abortion is always and only the taking of innocent life – no more, no less.

  28. dave says:

    Are you really claiming this is germane to our discussion?

    It is as germane as suicide and infanticide are to the conversation.

    And do you really acknowledge no difference between guilt and innocence on this topic?

    And no, when talking about the value of life, I do not believe that guilt or innocence change the value of one’s life.

  29. Melody says:

    Can one of you help me figure out how to do those quote boxes that you all use?

  30. dave says:

    Melody – like this:
    [blockquote]quote[/blockquote]

    But replace the “[” with “”.

  31. dave says:

    Ugh… that didn’t work. Replace the brackets with less than and more than signs.

  32. harmonicminer says:

    Thanks for trying, Dave, I put up a short post to show how to do it. It’s hard to put HTML instruction in comments fields that simply render the HTML instead of leaving it alone. If I knew more, there is probably a way… but I know only enough to be dangerous.

  33. Melody says:

    Thanks guys, I’m helpless and hopless.

Leave a Reply