Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
I would've nixed it as well. Not because of my beliefs, but because of how it is put together. I am familiar with the tools of manipulation and this was a masterpiece. If they hadn't wrecked with the lie in the end, I might have been on the edge. I might have gone to the pro abortion crowd and gave them a chance in on it. I could even write it for them.
You are warned that I know this, so here is what I would do -
Start with the same neonatal images, and then go to real life, show starving kids, poverty, all that, go even farther, "this one was neglected from the start, almost starved and froze, was abused by ....." and so forth. And then cut to a scene of a crazy Woman tied to a bed in a mental institution, thrashing about. "And this is her Mother".
Then cut to the last line, "Sometimes choice is not really a choice".
Now folks, I came up with that in about fifty seven seconds, what do you think I could do given a couple of days to think about it ? These people are total schmutzes IMO, I could do damnear any of their jobs.
And to choose to air it on the super bowl is the epitome of poor management. The most costly advertising in the world, no doubt with the delusional attitude rampant, that human life is precious. Sure it is, but spending that exhorbitant amount on a TV commercial instead of really trying to get your point across is quite incompetent.
It's sort of a dark sensationalism you see now and then. It is in poor taste when used by either side.
And the lie at the end would be the last straw for me. I do not support censorship, but now we are in one of those gray areas. Perhaps it would be better to just let the ad air. I see no way the network or stations could be held responsoble.
Heard the saying "Better to be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt", well sometimes you need to let them speak. [Have to see if that ad shows up anywhere else.] In other words, let them open their mouth so as to insert foot.
This could be an interesting subject if people don't wreck it, because we are indeed talking about censorship, just by a (sorta) private entity rather than the government. But a private entity has that right, just as local politicos have to ask permission to put a sign on your front lawn.
We have a long way to go in learning to live with one another. This can go into nativity scenes in public places. Well what about a public place that is privately owned ? You have hotels and so forth nearby government builings, the Marriot has a nativity scene for example, but they aren't alowed to put them up on the government property. However public law applies to private property when said property is used by the general public, in other words, yes you need insurance and a license to drive in a Walmart parking lot. Even though it is private property, it is used by the general public. So why does that not apply, or does it ?
Big big gray area here.
T
|
RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad - 
Profile
?
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread