This Sunday, CBS will broadcast a lengthy event featuring lots of strong, sweaty men grappling and wrestling each other to the ground, all in an effort to grab balls and plow through the other guys' back field. Meanwhile, large-breasted women in skimpy skirts and low-cut shirts will jump up and down enthusiastically in an effort to make the whole affair seem less homoerotic so that the majority of men watching will not wonder if they should be questioning their sexuality.
And that's not all.
The afternoon will also give viewers their annual (and much-anticipated) opportunity to see the finest advertisements that money can buy. Crammed into thirty-second chunks, each ad will cost $100,000 per second just to broadcast. In other words, the money spent on producing the ad doesn't even figure into that amount.
(If that doesn't make you shit bricks, put on an industrial-strength diaper and take a look at Jonah Falcon's epic wang.)
I've already rambled at you plenty about the type of ads you're going to see if you tune in, including one heavy on pro-life anti-choice rhetoric. But what it appears you won't see is an ad for a gay dating site called ManCrunch.com, in which two male Super Bowl watchers kiss each other passionately after their hands touch when reaching into a bowl of potato chips.
Yeah. Despite not being above presenting grown men in tight pants piling up on each other, CBS deemed the proposed ManCrunch ad "not within the Network's broadcast standards for Super Bowl Sunday," according to a report by CNN.
So, just what the fuck are CBS's standards? Apparently, their criteria allow bailed-out auto giants to buy not one, but two ads-worth of air time. Chrysler is reportedly spending $6 million of their our bailout money on a 60-second ad, because 30 seconds of obscenely dull shots of cars parked on rain-soaked streets or on look-out patches of dirt on the PCH are apparently just not enough to drive home the fact that watching cars is FUCKING BORING, whether you're sitting in rush-hour traffic or are unfortunate enough to catch a glimpse of NASCAR when flipping through TV channels.
Fuck NASCAR. Seriously.
But back to my point — CBS is irresponsible. We know that the network ditched ManCrunch's ad, and while it didn't give a specific reason, we can probably assume the ad didn't make the cut because of the whole guy-on-guy make-out session. Whether CBS is homophobic or just didn't want to deal with audience backlash and field inarticulate hate mail and death threats from rednecks, Evangelists, and middle-school dropouts is anyone's guess. The network is choosing the easy route over possibly broadening horizons by suggesting that, yes, it's okay if two people of the same sex engage in consensual kissing.
If you're thinking that this suggests cowardice on the part of CBS, and not irresponsibility, consider what kinds of ads have made the cut, and what they suggest about the network's ethics. I ran through the companies advertising during this Super Bowl and did a little analysis to see what CBS thinks is appropriate to push on a public with the willpower and self-direction of a herd of cattle:
Coca-Cola: The staggering number of empty calories in high-fructose corn syrup and their contribution to obesity and diabetes are, apparently, much less dangerous than the acceptance of homosexual relationships.
Snickers: Why eat a satisfying, nutrient-rich snack when pure shit refined sugars and processed chocolate will fill your stomach just as easily?
Chrysler: Now that we've given this company our money, they're going to spend it convincing us to give them more. And we will, because some of us are fucking tools. (Plus, let's not forget that capitalism + unregulated lobbying = awesome.)
Denny's: Good food? Nah. But cheap food? Hell, yes! Besides, when it's 3 AM and you can't sleep because meth has got you wired like a motherfucker, where else can you get a hamburger, pancakes, and a strawberry milkshake?
Budweiser: Alcoholism is a pleasant experience filled with mildly-amusing social gaffes, encounters with many interesting characters, and engaging evenings at various public venues, all of which end in successful flirting with attractive women, because, hey, women don't deserve anything better than to be manipulated by horny drunks, right? Now drink up, loser! Your kids need role models, and Budweiser needs future customers.
So, if you're a corporation with about $3 million for an ad spot and are selling more status quo bullshit, good for you! You've passed CBS's rigorous tests for advertiser acceptability.
Or maybe not. Maybe I've got it all wrong. Perhaps I'm having a hard time seeing a legitimate side to the rejection of ManCrunch's ad because I'm too damned secure in my own pants and open-minded. If anyone out there can channel some prejudice and provide another side to this issue I'd very much appreciate the opportunity to practice swinging my bigot beatstick — which is to say I'd enjoy an objective, unbiased discussion of the subject, of course.
Ali,
'Choosing' life is somehow misconstrued as "anti-choice rhetoric". Please explain.
"Whether CBS is homophobic or just didn't want to deal with audience backlash and field inarticulate hate mail and death threats from rednecks, Evangelists, and middle-school dropouts..."
You know, just because someone disagrees with homosexuality doesn't mean they should be stuck in a liberal 'label' box. Do gays like it? I sure the fuck don't.
"The network is choosing the easy route over possibly broadening horizons by suggesting that, yes, it's okay if two people of the same sex engage in consensual kissing."
I read this as, 'good business decision'. Regardless what you or I think of the issue, the bottom line IS the bottom line. (Apparently they'll get around to Katie Couric sometime in the future...)
"(Plus, let's not forget that capitalism + unregulated lobbying = awesome.)"
or
government + special interests = awesome
"If anyone out there can channel some prejudice and provide another side to this issue I'd very much appreciate the opportunity to practice swinging my bigot beatstick — which is to say I'd enjoy an objective, unbiased discussion of the subject, of course."
So for disagreeing, am I an uneducated, hate-filled, evangelical, prejudicial, insecure, close-minded bigot?
Again, so open-minded on the Left...
Swing away -
Posted by: Tracy | February 02, 2010 at 02:56 PM
Tracy! I always like hearing from you. But I'm sure you didn't comment looking for me to banter pleasantly. :-)
"'Choosing' life is somehow misconstrued as 'anti-choice rhetoric'. Please explain."
Will do. I have nothing against choosing life--it's the push for everyone to choose as "the hypothetical you" would choose that riles me up. As you say later in your comment, "the bottom line IS the bottom line." Indeed--no one puts $3 million into an ad just to celebrate family, life, etc. The bottom line here is a political agenda, and that agenda is to sway voters to limit choice. Even a perfectly-heartwarming story of happiness by choosing life can be reduced to political ammunition.
"You know, just because someone disagrees with homosexuality doesn't mean they should be stuck in a liberal 'label' box."
Agreed. As I'm politically rather moderate overall, those would really be moderate labels, and I think they're rather appropriate for the kinds of people who reflexively send hate mail and death threats when they see something they disagree with on TV or in the news. A loud, bigoted minority suddenly becomes the apparent voice of the majority in such cases, which sucks.
Regarding what you said about the "good business decision," you're absolutely right. But my cynicism hasn't (yet) overwhelmed me to the point that I will give up on pushing freedom of thought and expression in favor of playing it safe for the sake of business. Is it CBS's choice? Sure. But does that mean I can't criticize them?
"government + special interests = awesome"
(The needle on my sarcasm detector just wobbled a bit.) I hate the subversion of the "government of the people" regardless of whether you call it lobbying, special interests, or by its truer name: distracting public servants from public service.
"So for disagreeing, am I an uneducated, hate-filled, evangelica, prejudicial, insecure, close-minded bigot?"
Of course not! Your disagreement doesn't "channel some prejudice" to provide another side to this--you bring a valid angle.
Sorry to disappoint you if you were expecting a vehement liberal ramble... :-)
Posted by: Ali H | February 02, 2010 at 06:17 PM
"Tracy! I always like hearing from you. But I'm sure you didn't comment looking for me to banter pleasantly. :-)"
Au contraire! I've enjoyed our bantering as well. We disagree but it's fun. So far. Don't go slacking off on me now Ali... ;)
Regarding the abortion ad...
I often hear 'pro-choice' folks say, "Nobody is 'for' abortion". Yet the moment someone says they're 'against' it, shit hits the fan. WTF? That's one of the most asinine concepts I've ever heard.
"A loud, bigoted minority suddenly becomes the apparent voice of the majority in such cases, which sucks."
First, I contest your numbers here. As such, do you see that that's how a lot of these folks see the gay movement? A loud bigoted minority? (As in, they feel gay beliefs are being forced down their throats just as gays feel others are jamming their beliefs down theirs.)
No deep throat jokes now Ali. Especially if we're talking Jonah Falcon. Egads.
And I'm not disappointed at all, thank you for your thoughts :)
Posted by: Tracy | February 03, 2010 at 06:58 AM
p.s. Go Lions!
Posted by: Tracy | February 03, 2010 at 06:59 AM