This ad will run on the NBC Golden Globes Award broadcast:
A similar commercial had previously been rejected by ABC.
Cowabunga! Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:.
Is presenting this commercial on a prime time broadcast network a positive development for society?
Or, in the alternative, is it feminist grandstanding by NBC? Will it inevitably lead to graphic male enhancement ads? If women can be topless in this commercial, on what basis will anyone be able to argue that breast-bearing shouldn’t be routine in entertainment programming?
8 thoughts on “Ethics Quiz: Positive Devlopment Or Slippery Slope?”
C) None of the above.
What you’ve seen here is a 1:15. Spots longer than 1:00 are basically unheard of unless it’s the Superbowl, and even on that show they’re the exception rather than the rule. Dollars to donuts the 1:15 is intended solely for online distribution via YouTube, where it will likely gain props for its authenticity.
For broadcast, however, the spot will be edited down and air as either a :30 or :60, and if there’s so much as a flash of aureola I’d be astonished.
Not that I’ll find out. I suppose it’s possible for me to care even less about the Golden Globes than I currently do, but I don’t know how that could happen.
You’ll have to watch to find out. The buzz is that it will, but that could be to hype the broadcast.
I’LL have to watch…?
Not just no. HELL no.
I don’t think presenting this ad on prime time television is a positive development for society. It shows what is considered “decent” today. I would guess that defenders of the ad would say it’s natural, there’s nothing to be ashamed of. Sure. Why not show graphic scenes of defecation, copulation, masturbation, etc. Those are also natural activities. It would be difficult to argue against those activities and defend this one with a straight face.
I have of course heard of the ad, but this is the first time I’m seeing it. I think the ad is gratuitous. If the above commercial were solely advocating for breastfeeding and/or public acceptance and accommodation there of, I’d be more sympathetic. However, it is exploiting naked breasts to sell a product (breast pads manufactured by Frida).
Even if for pure public health advocacy, it is excessive. Failing to accept modest feeding in public is mostly “ick factor”. Showing breastfeeding in all its messy glory on national TV does not make it less icky; the commercial kind of makes it worse. I cringed several times, and not over the nipple itself.
I walk to work from my parking lot everyday past a billboard with a smiling baby that say “Breastfeeding, it’s Worth It!” from the Dept. of Public Health. No graphic content. An effective ad that promotes safe, sanitary breastfeeding could be made. This ad was not it.
This will please you, Jack. Pursuant to my adamant response above, I did NOT watch the show, so I cannot tell you in which format the lactacting-tittie spot ran. I stipulate my former post, fully willing to issue a Level One apology should someone prove me wrong that it ran full-strength (maybe that’s what the sponsor was banking on: nobody would watch anyway).
Apparently, however, comparatively nobody else did, either: https://tinyurl.com/2xf95r5e
Good times, folks. Good times. May the lactating-titties wave.*
* who knows. Maybe I’m just bitter, 66+ years later, because I was bottle fed due to an otherwise truly wonderful mother who sported mosquito bites.
Today’s Times had a story that I though was going to explain what ran, but it was obviously written before the show, and the review didn’t mention it.