The UCC Ad

Steve Sanders has a post up about the decision by NBC and CBS not to run an advertisement paid for by the United Church of Christ, an ad that bore the message "Jesus didn't turn people away." Watching the excuses offered by the networks on this one is just surreal. They'll show every piece of crap reality show you can think of. They'll show on talk show after another featuring a never ending line of people who slept with their grandmothers while their uncle videotaped it. They'll show anything they can legally get away with that will get the attention of people to condemn it as long as it gets them attention and pushes up the ratings. But a message of inclusion? From a church? Well that's just too controversial. Most absurd of all is their excuse for why this is too controversial:


"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations," reads an explanation from CBS, "and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks."

Wow. A commercial that advocates tolerance is too controversial because the White House prefers intolerance? Is this really what the media should be doing, falling into a perfect goosestep behind the White House by refusing to even allow a dissenting viewpoint to be aired? Why stop there? What about the Sunday morning talk shows? Are they going to ban anyone who disagrees with the White House on gay marriage? If they're consistent, they have to.

This whole thing is lunacy. Are they really going to tell us that the White House proposing to amend the Constitution to specifically deny equal protection to gays is fine, but even suggesting that gay people shouldn't be ostracized from one of society's most enduring institutions, that's too controversial and can't be allowed to be seen? Well yes, apparently they are. Anyone buying that? I didn't think so. By the way, does anyone remember that last September, CNN refused to run an ad from the Log Cabin Republicans? Their excuse? You guessed it - "too controversial". It appears that the only voices the public is allowed to hear on this issue are the voices of intolerance. Promoting tolerance is just too darn controversial. Such amazing cowardice.

Tags

More like this

Debra Saunders, in today's Chronicle, decries Intolerance 2009. She is trying to claim that it is hypocritical for groups seeking gay equality to oppose Rick Warren while supporting Obama. Both oppose gay marriage, you see. That Obama opposed Prop. 8 and has repeatedly stated his desire to see…
The White House has been kind enough to put the text of President Bush's speech advocating the "Marriage Protection Amendment" yesterday on their webpage. It would make a perfect example of illogical argumentation for a logic course. The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and…
Secularists in Indiana wanted to run a simple message on buses in Bloomington: "You can be good without god". The transit authority refused their money because the message was "too controversial". Too controversial? Is it their position that it is controversial that atheists can be good? I would…
Eugene Volokh has a post about this suit, likely prompted by me bringing it up on his religion law listserv this morning, and he argues that it probably isn't unconstitutional but still troublesome. First amendment law is his specialty, so he's probably got a pretty firm grasp on it. I'm gonna take…

Hearing stuff like this makes my stomach turn.

By Matthew Phillips (not verified) on 03 Dec 2004 #permalink

I think the real reason is that they are so afraid of Focus, CWA, AFA etc. raising a stink or sending in their lawyer puppets in. It's really silly how scared folks are of these fascists following the election.