Pro Bowl Wrap Up and Super Bowl Warm Up

by Brandon on Feb 1, 2010 7:00 AM CST in News Comment 24 comments

I missed the first quarter of the Pro Bowl because I was out buying a piano. Once I shake off 25 years of rust, I'll be ready to break out the Billy Joel songbook. I apologize if anyone came looking for a Pro Bowl open thread, but I just didn't have the heart to put one up. It's just a NFL promotional event, and not a real game! That said, I agree with Tex and it was the best Pro Bowl I can remember watching in a long time. Maybe I just liked seeing QB Aaron Rodgers start and play so well.

I'm a big fan of free speech so it's really sad to see CBS ban a Super Bowl ad for the gay dating web site Mancrunch.com. Though it's not a bad deal for the website: they don't have to pay for a Super Bowl ad, but generate a bunch of free publicity. Hopefully CBS changes it's mind during the week. But why did they have to pick a Packer and a Viking fan for the big make-out scene?

I don't think there is anyway that DE Dwight Freeney can play on a torn ankle ligament. I have personal experience with the injury, and I walked with a significant limp for weeks afterwards. He shouldn't play, and I can't imagine he would be effective anyway. Obviously the Colts are better with him than without, but I don't think it's a fatal blow to their defense either.

0 recs | Comment 24 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I don’t think it would have been banned if they didn’t have the big makeout scene. Can’ you advertise for a gay dating site without having guys making out? I guess that where I struggle…if they really wanted it shown, I think they knew what they needed to do. This was a publicity stunt from the start…now they don’t have to pay that money AND they get the same publicity.

by TrevorR on Feb 1, 2010 7:37 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

That and...

CBS wants to make money. I’m sure that a makeout seen between a male viking fan and a smokin’ hot packer fan would sell a product to a larger demographic while offending a much smaller demographic than the product being debated. No, it’s not particularly fair, but I hope no one is surprised that CBS’s purpose is to make as much money as possible.

by levnclf on Feb 1, 2010 12:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

*smokin' hot FEMALE packer fan

(for the purposes of that example)

by levnclf on Feb 1, 2010 12:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder what other ads have been rejected

that have gotten zero publicity.

by levnclf on Feb 1, 2010 12:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Yet they're allowing the Tim Tebow pro-life commercial

Gotta love hypocrisy.

"You have no honor!" - McClung to Fukudome

by zsxander567 on Feb 1, 2010 1:11 PM CST reply actions 1 recs

eh…I don’t think its hypocrisy…Tebow isn’t making out with another dude. He’s talking about a controversial subject but I doubt he’s showing aborted fetuses or something like that. Its a decency thing, not a subject matter thing. I almost guarantee you if they put that commercial out there without showing two dudes making out, they get their air time. There are plenty of dating sites advertising all over without people making out…its not necessary.

I stand by my point that this website never wanted it to get aired, they just wanted the free pub. This is actually BETTER than what an ad would have gotten them AND it was free.

by TrevorR on Feb 1, 2010 1:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

"Its a decency thing, not a subject matter thing."

So, let me get this straight: showing two men kissing in an ad for a gay dating site is the equivalent of showing actual aborted fetuses in an anti-abortion ad? Does that apply to two women kissing as well?

Hmmm, methinks you may be a bit homophobic.

by 400metres on Feb 1, 2010 4:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Show what exactly in his

post points to him being homophobic. My general impression is that most of the time when someone accuses another of being homophobic or some other popular diss, it’s so that he can make himself feel enlightened, educated, not like one of those bible thumping cretans who damns gays and democrats to hell.

by levnclf on Feb 1, 2010 9:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

FWIW to you, see my response to Trevor below.

I made my charge thoughfully, not to simply “diss” him. I don’t take bigotry lightly and I certainly don’t call people on what I perceive as bigoted behavior just to “feel enlightened, educated,” &c. I do it because I feel generally outraged by irrational prejudices.

by 400metres on Feb 2, 2010 3:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

jump to conclusions much?

Look, the point here is that two men kissing is shock value. Its something they are showing because it captures attention. Its not MUCH different than those go daddy commercials really and those were forced to be tamed down with all the “juicy content” online. I used the comment about aborted fetuses because that was really the only shock value kind of thing they could show in a “pro-life” ad, right? Its about decency and the facts are that the general public don’t want to have naked people, same sex kissing, blood and guts, etc in their commercials during a “family event”.

I challenge them to put together an ad that doesn’t have the two dudes kissing and submit it and I guarantee you it gets through. My take is that their either did this because: 1) They new it would be rejected and they wanted the firestorm that follows (free press, no million dollar ad), 2) Pure shock value if it goes through and lots of people talking about it…good or bad it press.

by TrevorR on Feb 1, 2010 9:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Not airing it because two dudes kiss would make some sense if an ad where two guys kissed hadn’t already aired during the Superbowl.

Granted, it may have not have aired on CBS (I’m not sure).

by drezdn on Feb 2, 2010 7:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You’re absolutely right that mancrunch tried it as a trick to get free publicity, but I’m pretty sure that’s the same reason Focus on the Family is airing the Tebow spot. They may even be disappointed that they didn’t get turned down.

by drezdn on Feb 2, 2010 7:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What's worse to me

is the fact that Focus on the Family is prepared to spend $4 million on a 30 second advertisement regarding a highly controversial subject at the same time they are laying off hundreds of employees, most of whom likely support an actual family.

Seems FoF’s values are a bit misplaced.

by 400metres on Feb 2, 2010 3:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Focus on the Family isn't paying for the ad.

by levnclf on Feb 2, 2010 4:38 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Listen, I don't want to get into a whole thing here,

but FoF has contributed $1 million from its own general fund to the ad, while their spokespeople fundraised the remaining $3 million from FoF members and other groups.

My point is why are they laying off families when they can pull those kind of funds to pay CBS for a 30 second advertisement regarding a controversial topic about which 95% of the viewers have already made their mind up?

Seems like they’ve lost their focus.

by 400metres on Feb 3, 2010 1:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

hmm Budweiser had MASSIVE layoffs in 2008 and they still advertised big in the Super Bowl and I bet I could find dozens of companies that have laid people off in the past year and are still advertising aggressively. That said, I think its a bad use of money and I don’t think it will be that effective. I can’t imagine there are THAT many people sitting on the fence just waiting for a compelling super bowl commercial to sway them.

by TrevorR on Feb 3, 2010 12:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Trevor, c'mon

Budweiser is a for-profit corporation that must sell it’s products to stay profitable.

FoF is a non-profit Christian organisation. They don’t compete for profits or answer to shareholders.

Much like your comparisons above (2 men kissing = images of aborted fetuses), comparing Budweiser and other companies to Focus on the Family is a false equivalency.

All I’m saying is that for a non-profit organisation, purportedly dedicated to “healing brokenness in families”, FoF seems hypocritical laying of hundreds of employees while spending millions of dollars on advertisements.

by 400metres on Feb 3, 2010 1:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

While true, I think the snickers ad is a LITTLE bit different. A funny adaptation on Lady and the Tramp where two guys accidentally kiss and then are horrified by what happened is different from two guys making out.

by TrevorR on Feb 2, 2010 8:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough Trevor

but, again, I don’t understand why “same sex kissing” holds the equivalent shock value to “blood and guts” and “naked people” during a “family event.”

If that’s true, it’s only because the shocked viewer is homophobic. And because you seem to be offering your take in defense of CBS’s policy, I’m assuming you feel the equally shocked by two men kissing. If not, my apologies for jumping to that conclusion.

We see men and women kissing on commercials all the freaking time (particularly those Kay Jewelers ads that ran incessantly during the latter portion of the NFL season, for instance: here, here, or here).

I’m not trying to be an asshole, I just would like you to see that there’s a double standard that exists and can only be explained by anti-gay bigotry.

by 400metres on Feb 2, 2010 3:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You throw around accusations and BIG words really easily. I think its time to back down some. I could EASILY throw a very similar accusation toward you about Christians too with some of the things you have been saying. You clearly take issue with Focus on the Family.

Homophobic is a VERY commonly misused word, it means an unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality. Antipathy = Repugnance. This word is thrown around WAY too often and way too easily to try to talk against an argument and its BS!

Lets just take things back a few notches before you start makings such serious accusations. You are also making a lot of assmptions about me and what I take a stand on…its pretty insulting.

Regarding FOF, I think the ad is a waste of money. I don’t know where the money came from but I hear its not FOF, but either way, I don’t see it as a good use of money as its not very likely to impact people other than stirring the pot. This ad still comes down to what the general public wants to see. CBS wants to make money. They wanted to avoid the bad press that likely would have followed by airing the ad and they were able to sell all their slots without it. They made a business decision on what they felt was best for THEM as a station. None of the rest of the BS matters.

by TrevorR on Feb 3, 2010 12:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You throw around accusations and BIG words really easily. I think its time to back down some. I could EASILY throw a very similar accusation toward you about Christians too with some of the things you have been saying. You clearly take issue with Focus on the Family.

What “BIG words” are you referring to? And when did I say anything anti-Christian? Yes, I do take issue with FoF in this instance. Overall, I don’t care what they do and I completely support their right to associate and speak their minds. I’m not religious myself, but I fully support any person’s right to religious freedom. However, being Christian does not cloak anyone or any group from criticism.

Homophobic is a VERY commonly misused word, it means an unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality. Antipathy = Repugnance. This word is thrown around WAY too often and way too easily to try to talk against an argument and its BS!

Lets just take things back a few notches before you start makings such serious accusations. You are also making a lot of assmptions about me and what I take a stand on…its pretty insulting.

Okay, thanks for the definition, but how does that not apply to your characterisation of two men kissing as “indecent”? That’s why I called your comment homophobic, because you expressed repugnance toward the act of kissing between same sex couples. Wouldn’t you feel offended if someone described you kissing your spouse or girlfriend as inherently shocking and indecent?

And as far as taking things back a few notches, I already did that in the comment you’re replying to. I apologised to you on the condition that you didn’t really mean to make the false equivalency between images of aborted fetuses and gay people kissing both being “indecent” and “shocking”, so both could be suppressed. To me, that’s a terrible comparison to make because images of aborted fetuses are always shocking and repugnant to any viewer, whereas images of people of the same sex kissing is only shocking and repugnant to a certain type of viewer.

I’ve only made assumptions based off of what you’ve written. On the other hand, you’ve now accused me of being anti-Christian as well as not understanding what the word homophobia means, despite not offering any evidence of either.

I think we ought to agree to disagree and let it alone. I’ve always enjoyed reading the comments you leave on this site, but I think this is one area where we are just not on the same page.

by 400metres on Feb 3, 2010 2:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

By the way, I think I just watched a video of the actual commercial. Its actually a pretty dumb commercial which makes me think even MORE that they never planned on it getting aired. As a packer fan I am insulted! haha just messing with ya on that one.

by TrevorR on Feb 3, 2010 12:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs