Comments on: After the Tebow Ad

By: jan

jan — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:48:06 +0000

Could we have your take on CBS now rejecting an ad in favor of legalizing marijuana? I thought they had changed their policy but maybe there’s something I”m missing!

By: Glenn Logan

Glenn Logan — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:19:23 +0000

I don’t know, Jack. After taking the whole thing into account, I believe they were that smart. Almost no other explanation makes sense, except for one — just plain lucky. The commercial bore no relation to how it was described in the media.

And yes, I believe NOW et. al. were also that dumb. The combination has been hilarious, to say the very least. Watching the pro-choice crowd twist themselves into knots attacking something so astonishingly inoffensive is worthy of a half-hour on Saturday Night Live.

By: jan

jan — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:48:01 +0000

I, too, saw the ad and was stunned by its blandness. As I suspected, it won’t affect any opinions, and was a waste of money by FOF (thank goodness; wish they had purchased more time). Call me cynical–could it be that they changed the ad after the controversy? Supposedly, it was supposed to recount the agony of the mother’s decision to have her baby at the risk of her own life. In any case, I think the pro-choice advocates could have turned the tables on this ad if they had emphasized the importance of a woman’s right to make an informed choice. They blew it.

By: Jack Marshall

Jack Marshall — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:18:29 +0000

Glenn…I’ll go a step further: it was a terrible ad, unless it was specifically and diabolically designed to 1) trick pro-abortion advocates into attacking it sight-unseen, thus making its message explicit without ever having to present it, and 2) make the attackers look silly by revealing the most innocuous commercial imaginable. Wilford Brimley asks Paul Newman in the climax of “Absence of Malice”"Are you that smart?”, and I have to ask the same of Focus on Family. If the group is that smart, it deserves a lot of credit. What I suspect, however, is the opposite: NOW et al. were that dumb.

By: Glenn Logan

Glenn Logan — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:11:15 +0000

I watched the ad and forgot all about the controversy. If there was an anti-abortion message in there, I completely missed it.

But I did laugh. I found myself trying to figure out what it all meant, then remembered the controversy.

If that was an anti-abortion ad, it’s message was too subtle to impact anybody. If I hadn’t read about it, I would have had to look it up on the Internet to see what it was all about.

Then again, perhaps that was the design — to make you curious. If so, it was a victory of understatement over the current trend of excessiveness in advertising.

By: Tim LeVier

Tim LeVier — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:28:47 +0000

Call me ridiculous, but can someone find for me an Ethics Hero? This particular ethics hero will be a company or organization that acknowledges their adversary in a neutral, respectful manner. While this Ethics Hero is trying to sell their own point, they will recognize the valid points made by their adversary. So many of us these days assume there is only one point of view and that everything is mutually exclusive. But I have news for you: It's all interconnected! We may have evolved from some original creation. We might choose new life. We democrat-ically elect our representatives for our republic. We capitalize on our hard work efforts and turn around and give to social charitable causes. The analysis of Cognitive Dissonance is spot on, but here's one way to reduce its effect...realize that 99 times out of 100, you are wrong. I'm hoping that this is one of my "right" times.

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:21:07 +0000

NOW is a defunct, only self-serving organization. They talk only to themselves; at least, the only ones who take them seriously are themselves.

Find betters issue, guys. You’re starting to sound like a bunch of yahoos. And please, if you overreact, have the decency to say so.