Last Updated:
|
Volume 16, Spring 2004 |
Features
Is What You're Not Seeing Hurting You?
Staff Writer
There are the people who "only watch for the commercials;" those 30-second mini-movies for which companies shell out huge amounts of money to have broadcast.
As we look back on Super Bowl XXXVIII, broadcast on CBS, we can probably still remember the tense overtime, the Patriots' final field goal, and most likely, a little incident involving Janet Jackson's halftime show. Then there are the people who "only watch for the commercials;" those 30-second mini-movies for which companies shell out huge amounts of money to have broadcast. There is a competition just as fierce as the athletes' to create the funniest, edgiest or most memorable ad during the game. From this year's Super Bowl, you might remember an elderly couple fighting for a bag of Lays potato chips, a Budweiser-sponsored donkey dreaming of becoming a racehorse, and Homer Simpson using his MasterCard to pay for a beer at Moe's.
But there is one ad you would not remember, because chances are you never saw it: a blond little girl, perhaps six or seven years old, cleans the hallways of an office building at night; a small African-American boy works in an assembly line; other children wash dishes at a restaurant, haul garbage to a truck, and work a grocery store checkout line. As plaintive music plays, the words "Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1 trillion deficit?" appear over a black background.
Here is another ad: Shot on cheesy 70s video, two ditsy female porn stars greet their "pizza delivery man" and exchange some "extra sausage" innuendo. When they retreat behind a couch to get their groove on, one exclaims that there is a problem. It seems that the pizza man is having performance trouble in every take. Finally, he is shown the door and replaced by a man delivering zucchini. The ad's more comical text warns, "Meat can cause impotence. Go veg!" and shows a link to a vegetarian interest website sponsored by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
They were rejected due to the network's policy against "advocacy" commercials.
Offended yet? Well, CBS was. Although both commercials - titled "Child's Pay" and "Sausage" respectively - passed traditional Standards & Practices guidelines and had money behind them (largely through grassroots donations), they were rejected due to the network's policy against "advocacy" commercials.
The 1500 entries received were whittled down to a few dozen finalists by online polling, and the winner was judged by a panel of celebrity judges.
MoveOn.org, the organization which sponsored the anti-Bush spot, did not expect the rejection. In the 2003 Super Bowl on ABC, the group was allowed to produce an ad criticizing the war in Iraq . To try something different, this year the organization sponsored a nationwide contest called "Bush in 30 Seconds." The 1500 entries received were whittled down to a few dozen finalists by online polling, and the winner was judged by a panel of celebrity judges including Jack Black, Janeanne Garofalo, Margaret Cho, Moby, REM's Michael Stipe, Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder, and Michael Moore. They chose an ad that they believed had an accessible, powerful message that could open the minds of viewers who had not considered political issues, and MoveOn had always planned to air it after the State of the Union Address (it did, on CNN) and during the Super Bowl.
Meanwhile, PETA's commercial was created by an advertising team specifically for mainstream appeal. The group's spokesperson commented that because "sex, humor, and animals" sell products best, PETA tried employing all three elements in a parody of Super Bowl "jiggly" ads. CBS did not appreciate the joke and added that the PETA spot "raised significant taste concerns" in addition to controversial ideas.
It seems that taste concerns were not a factor when the network aired three separate erectile-dysfunction drug commercials during this year's game.
It seems that taste concerns were not a factor when the network aired three separate erectile-dysfunction drug commercials during this year's game. In previous years, CBS has shown scantily clad women mud-wrestling for beer, clips from movies and TV shows with heavy violence (including CBS's popular murder-investigation series CSI), and in the wake of September 11, a White House-sponsored anti-drug ad which linked purchasing marijuana to supporting terrorism. Were these ads less shocking than the rejected PETA ad? Free speech activists do not think so.
"Would America be traumatized and changed forever viewing this dangerous, controversial, 30-second ad? Clearly not."
Immediately after CBS made their decision, supporters of both PETA and MoveOn sprang into action, calling it a case of censorship. According to MoveOn, CBS received nearly 350,000 e-mails on the subject during the week before the Super Bowl, in addition to pressure through faxes, phone calls, and newspaper editorials around the country. The decision also rattled politicians. "CBS is afraid of this ad," Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said about one commercial, in a statement to the U.S. Senate days before the game. "Would America be traumatized and changed forever viewing this dangerous, controversial, 30-second ad? Clearly not."
Democratic members of Congress wrote letters urging CBS to let both the MoveOn and PETA ads run. Even Republicans, like conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly, were surprised by CBS's move. "It's not offensive," he said of the MoveOn ad, "and it makes a legitimate point politically."
Supporters of CBS say there is a difference between controversial programming and advertising
Why is CBS so worried about getting political? Flash back three or four decades, and this network was producing documentaries to educate the public on the suffering of poor American farmers. In the 1970s, it was also home to All in the Family, the offensive and often subversive sitcom about a lovable, ultra-conservative bigot squabbling with his progressive daughter and son-in-law. Supporters of CBS say there is a difference between controversial programming and advertising: Viewers pick what they watch on television, but have no choice but to see 30-second propaganda played during the highest-rated sports event of the year.
Although the two ads rejected now seem harmless and were sponsored by relatively powerless groups, CBS believes allowing any advocacy commercials would lead to a slippery slope effect, and groups who have the most money could end up controlling public opinion. Durbin responded that this argument does not give the public enough credit. He said it is "all right for me as an American to watch something on television with which I disagree.
"From the CBS point of view, they will pick and choose what you can watch."
"Freedom of speech is about being presented with various viewpoints, forming your own opinion, and perhaps even calling a station manager to complain or boycott," Durbin said. "From the CBS point of view, they will pick and choose what you can watch."
PETA does not buy the "advocacy" stand either. According to the animal-rights community, every commercial for a fast food restaurant advocates eating meat. Others ask if CBS has such strict policies, how could the station justify the spots from the anti-tobacco activists at TheTruth.com (officially known as The American Legacy Foundation)? In The Truth's Super Bowl ad, which raised an issue rather than selling a product, the group mimicked the tobacco industry as a company selling "shards of glass" popsicles while admitting the products were dangerous. Apparently, this ad did not cause a conflict of interest, despite the fact that CBS also ran public warning ads from Phillip Morris, the exact kind of spots being mocked. Perhaps CBS just feels that promoting a cigarette-free lifestyle is less preachy than promoting a vegetarian lifestyle and that a sardonic attack on "Big Tobacco" is easier to accept than a call to question President Bush. In the end, it is all about what the executives at CBS decide is crossing the line.
Some think there is something even more insidious at work. Late in 2003, shortly before the MoveOn.org ad was refused airtime, the Bush administration reversed an antitrust bill that threatened to break up large media corporations. One of the corporations clearly in question was Viacom, the parent company of CBS and a frequent soft money donator to the Republican National Committee. They benefited greatly from the bill's inability to go into effect, because it meant they can continue to hold a virtual monopoly on the American media, along with AOL Time Warner, Disney, and NewsCorp (20th Century Fox).
The Super Bowl matter is not the first time CBS has been accused of political censorship.
The Super Bowl matter is not the first time CBS has been accused of political censorship. The network recently pulled a mini-series called The Reagans from the CBS line-up after Republican groups got wind it would be an unflattering look at the former president. Another Viacom affiliate, MTV, publicly refused to show anti-war ads, though the cable station frequently airs recruitment ads for the U.S. Army and Marines.
CBS President Les Moonves has denied having politically conservative motives. "There are some things that, as networks, we need to be balanced about," he said in defense of the un-aired Ronald Reagan mini-series, adding that his choice not to air it was in the interest of staying neutral; he believed its liberal bias was too strong. After some compromise, The Reagans eventually found a much smaller audience on the premium-cable station, Showtime, another part of the Viacom family. On Super Bowl Sunday, the MoveOn and PETA commercials also reached a small audience even though they could not make their network debut. Interestingly enough, a few local CBS stations elected to air the commercials anyway during local advertising time, an option CBS found completely acceptable as long as the spots were not played nationally.
Ironically, CBS would probably hope now that more Americans had participated in that boycott.
The tale of a pizza man and his missing "Sausage" is still available for download on PETA's official Web site, and "Child's Pay" may continue to air periodically on CNN until the November election. The night of the Super Bowl, CNN played the latter ad twice during the halftime show and MoveOn urged its followers to spread the word: boycott the halftime show in favor of CNN. Ironically, CBS would probably hope now that more Americans had participated in that boycott. The breast-baring finale to the halftime show ultimately brought down the wrath of conservatives, the Christian right, and feminists alike, far more than either of the denied commercials could have. It may be the halftime show that was too controversial.
Nicole Grieco is a sophomore English major, Creative Writing minor, and she dreams of one day finding a job of some kind. She enjoys long walks on the beach, chocolate, Democrats, procrastination, and "American Idol." This is her first article for unbound.