Should so called “advocacy” ads be run during the Super Bowl ? An excellent story focusing on that potentially explosive subject was printed in the Toronto Star on Friday, January 29, by sports writer Cathal Kelly. The story revolves around the University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow, and his mother Pam, who are anti- abortion, and will share the story of Pam’s decision not to get an abortion when she was carrying Tim,even though a physician advised her too, while on a religious mission in the Philippines, where she became ill while pregnant. According to the Star story, the word “abortion”, will not be used in the advertisement. The theme being addressed in the spots is “Celebrate family;celebrate life”. The ad is funded by Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian group.
In the newspaper article, a CBS spokesperson explained the broadcasters position, on accepting the reported $2.5 to $3 million U.S. for the 30 seconds of air time. Said Dana McClintock: “ We have for some time moderated our approach to advocacy submissions after it became apparent that our stance did not reflect public sentiment, or industry norms. In fact, most media outlets have accepted advocacy ads for some time.” Whatever the real reason for accepting the ad, is only known by the network. Is the spokespersons explanation completely accurate, or is CBS feeling the economic depression, like many average and below average income earners are? Only they and their accountants know for sure.
I don’t have a problem with this kind of presentation during the Super Bowl. I doubt that anyone’s mind will be changed from either side of the abortion debate. However if someone does reconsider their feelings about the topic as a result of the 30 second spot, then that is their freedom. As long as there are no “hate” messages against any visible or non-visible groups, and no promotion of violence or harm against those who disagree with the perspective of the presenters, I can’t see the harm in showing it. While the Super Bowl ads have developed a cult like following over the last 10 years or more, those who dislike this particular message, will simply turn away from the TV set till it’s over, or use the time for a food or washroom break, as they would during commercial breaks for other television programs. Peoples feelings about important subjects like abortion, are usually formed over several years, not instantly decided after a 30 second perspective, during a sporting event, usually viewed by most in a light hearted, party like environment.
To further illustrate my rationale, I can recall as a youngster, that some of the best produced advertisements on television during the 1960’s, were the cigarette spots. Although I was impressionable and loved the ads, I never took up smoking at all. Ironically, speaking strictly from the entertainment perspective, some of cigarette spots, were better than some of the TV shows that were aired at the time. My point is that paying attention to an advertisement, even someone who could be influenced perhaps because of their age, does not in anyway guarantee any kind of result for those who buy the commercial time. In fact, some of the Tobacco ads from that era, are among the most top of mind memories, for viewers from that generation. Anyone who watched the “idiot box” ( that’s the name my parents gave the TV set) would most certainly remember the “Marlboro Man”, with the ruggedly handsome type cowboy on his horse. The Benson and Hedges commercials were also very creative, with catchy music, attractive actors, and humorous scenarios. Even with all that creative effort, I still had no desire to become a smoker. I tried one or two puffs on a cigarette as a 12 year old, and that was more than enough for me. My smoking ended there and then.
With that in mind, I don’t see any danger in advocacy ads on either side of the abortion debate, as being out of line, offensive, or unfair to anyone. Those who disagree with the message, or maybe offended by them, will probably just tune it out anyway.