Glad to see this sort of ad that emphasizes the agency of women.

Raging Grannies protest.

I like the tone and content of the James and Joyner ad from Planned Parenthood. Given the hoopla over the Focus on the Family ad, this will get a decent number of eyeballs.

CBS would be glad to run the Raging Grannies ad if they are willing to pony up the same amount as Focus on the Family.

Perhaps we should be glad FoF is blowing all this cash, and not spending it elsewhere. Perhaps we should also be glad that FoF feels its reputation is so blemished it needs to run a bland ad featuring a squeaky clean football player.

What I don't get is that groups like the grannies want CBS to revert to its policy of not taking any "controversial" ads, when these same groups previously complained about the policy. It sounds like they want one set of rules for themselves, and another for those they don't agree with.

CBS would be glad to run the Raging Grannies ad if they are willing to pony up the same amount as Focus on the Family.

That is blatantly untrue, John. CBS has demonstrated that it will take ads from conservative organizations (Focus on the Family), but not progressive ones (United Church of Christ).

It is the selectivity that's the problem. Last I checked, money was green, no matter whose it was...but apparently only conservative organizations are allowed to buy airtime. So CBS should either ban all "issue ads" or stop discriminating against progressives.

FWIW, I think it's waaaaaayyyyyy past time to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. The airwaves are nominally owned by the American public---and I want to see my views represented in the public square too.

Paige Baker

Misinformation hurts our cause, Paige. The UCC has said it doesn't want to spend the money on a Super Bowl ad, but rather spend it on Haiti. The UCC has been carefully to say it's complaint is that CBS has changed its policy and implies it's because money talks. There's one standard for those willing to spend the money and another for those who aren't. Is that a double standard?

Here's what we reported last week r.e. the UCC:
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/media/cbs_will_take_your_money_now.html

John--I am well aware that the UCC ad in question was in 2004--the same year that CBS also refused ads from MoveOn.org and PETA. I should have noted the dates in my post--but it would have been much more helpful had you done that, rather than accused me of spreading misinformation. (Your contention that the Raging Grannies could buy airtime if they had the money is much closer to misinformation than anything *I* wrote.)

My point is that CBS apparently decided to accept the Tebow ad---and only announced a change in policy when people got outraged. CBS still saw fit to refuse an ad for a gay dating service this year---so the track record I cited is still accurate. Conservatives get on the air. Progressives don't.

Paige Baker

Paige: "My point is that CBS apparently decided to accept the Tebow ad---and only announced a change in policy when people got outraged. CBS still saw fit to refuse an ad for a gay dating service this year---so the track record I cited is still accurate. Conservatives get on the air. Progressives don't."

Thank you for the correction.

An NYT editorial notes that the Tebow is carefully crafted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/opinion/31sun4.html?scp=6&sq=super%20bowl%20ad&st=Search

The National Organization for Women, NARAL Pro-Choice America and other voices for protecting women’s reproductive freedom have called on CBS to yank it. Their protest is puzzling and dismaying. ... The would-be censors are on the wrong track. Instead of trying to silence an opponent, advocates for allowing women to make their own decisions about whether to have a child should be using the Super Bowl spotlight to convey what their movement is all about: protecting the right of women like Pam Tebow to make their private reproductive choices.

How about let's make lemonade, and say we're glad Pam Tebow was trusted to make her own reproductive choice.