Tebow commercial: That was all?

you have a point, but pinning no gay themed ads on conservatives is a bit of a stretch. in NJ they voted against legalizing gay marriage and i don't think it was redneck wingnuts that swayed the vote. the network execs are more populists than conservative, they look to offend the least amount of people and make the most money.

edit: gay themed, not gay marriage.

 

Those who think the media is liberal might point out the massive uproar from after the ad was announced, and before it aired.

I thought this Super Bowl group just accepted an ad because it wanted money in tough economic times. If Tebow weren't in it, there's no way they accept that ad. But he gives it a football connection.

I hope the next Super Bowl doesn't have a single ad that can be construed as "political." But some would feel that "Please Help Haiti!" ads are political.

 

You don't know that they didn't.

 

If anyone wanted to take offense to an ad, the runaway leader would be the Dorito's one of the black couple getting ready for a date. Single mom shakes her thang at the guy (first date) as she's walking down the hall, the 8-year-old kid is well-versed in seeing his mom as a sex kitten and therefore has to warn the dude, and they even threw dreadlocks on the guy and gave everyone an ethnic-sounding name. That was objectionable.

The Tebow one doesn't even come close. First off, if you don't know the context -- which probably 80 percent of the viewing audience didn't -- the mom's lines sounded like gibberish. And it was sweet and smiley too. Unfortunately, a lot of people got so dug in on their position before even seeing it, and now (NOW?) they have to defend their position.

 

A friend of mine observed that until the final frame, the commercials pretty much looked like EHarmony ads for people who want to date their mothers.

 

Please, let's not play this game.

It's not on anyone to prove that the ad wasn't dramatically changed; it's on critics to prove that it was.

When I say dramatically changed, I mean something more significant than the omission or alteration of one line, which is what this USA Today article is saying was the only difference between the original ad and the one that ran during the pregame show.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2010-02-05-family05_ST_N.htm

There was a dramatic difference between the ad from the pregame show and the one that was shown during the game, in that Tim tackled Pam in what I guess was supposed to be a humourous touch. But the message was basically the same. Here are the two ads - judge for yourself.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2010/02/watch-tim-tebows-controversial-super-bowl-ad.html

Well, exactly. The fact that NOW is criticizing the commercial for a "celebration of...violence against women" but hasn't said boo about the other commercial in which a woman was tackled by a football player says all there needs to be said about that organization, its agenda and its ethics. Or lack thereof.

 

Fuck Tebow. He's an overrated piece of shit. That is all.

 

After some consideration, I'm just cynical enough to believe that this is how it all went down. Please indulge me in my speculation.

Focus on the Family itself leaked the rumour that it would appall the nation with its message in the Super Bowl commercial.

Its primary goal would have been to generate publicity and attention which would have value far greater than the millions it would spend on the project. But if it could also provoke NOW and other like-minded activists into revealing themselves to be intolerant fascists, so much the better.

Well, mission accomplished, in spades.

The ads ran, revealing themselves to be innocuous and sugary sweet, as they certainly were intended to be from the very beginning. There was no dramatic change needed, because the scandalous references to abortion were never intended to be broadcast. They were cheese for the trap.

And, boy, did the activists ever bite. Now they're left with egg on their faces, making ludicrous claims about violence against women that will be disdained or, more likely, simply ignored. Having stupidly played into the hands of Focus on the Family by making histrionic statements about an ad they had not seen - and would never see, because it never existed except in carefully planted rumours - they should come out of this mess with zero credibility.

How absolutely sickening this whole saga is. It was all manipulation, from Day 1. The only thing I'm not convinced of is the Tebows' culpability. Were they willing participants in this scam or were they were also used by Focus on the Family? My guess is it's the latter, but I wouldn't bet my next paycheque on that guess.

Even if the Tebows were used, they shouldn't come out of this smelling like a rose. Nobody should. Society is a whole lot poorer today because of this entire, shameful episode.

 

After watching those ads I was still left with the thought that he's going to be a shitty QB in the NFL.

 

What do you mean cynical. That's exactly what happened.

If they didn't leak it to get people worked up for weeks, I doubt few people would have even know it was about abortion. Probably would have thought it was a Tebow ad trying to increase his draft stock by showing that he can tackle.

 

Yeah the guy seems dead set on playing quarterback, but he looked like he was trying to prove he could be a linebacker in that ad.

 

You know what REALLY would have been awesome?

Third airing of the ad, Tebow's on the field about to tackle mom when SUDDENLY TERRY TATE BOOM