The pro-life ad that everyone is viewing and talking about, that shows an ultrasound video image of a baby in the womb, will not be aired during the Super Bowl, in spite of its popularity and G-rating. NBC, who is carrying this year's Super Bowl, rejected the ad after intense negotiations because they refuse to air ads dealing with "political advocacy and issues," even though the ad presents the issue in a very positive way. Read all about it HERE.
PETA also tried to get an ad aired on the Super Bowl, and it was also rejected. However there was no mention of political advocacy as the reason why NBC rejected theirs. Instead it was barred primarily due to the sexually explicit nature of the ad.
NBC has come under fire both from conservative talk show hosts from radio and TV and from their own Saturday Night Live for being in the tank for Barack Obama. This pro-life ad rejection is simply the latest example of their nearly complete abandonment of objectivity, and why the Fairness Doctrine being proposed by members of Congress should extend well beyond talk radio, or better yet, be axed altogether.
Here is the ad again:
PETA also tried to get an ad aired on the Super Bowl, and it was also rejected. However there was no mention of political advocacy as the reason why NBC rejected theirs. Instead it was barred primarily due to the sexually explicit nature of the ad.
NBC has come under fire both from conservative talk show hosts from radio and TV and from their own Saturday Night Live for being in the tank for Barack Obama. This pro-life ad rejection is simply the latest example of their nearly complete abandonment of objectivity, and why the Fairness Doctrine being proposed by members of Congress should extend well beyond talk radio, or better yet, be axed altogether.
Here is the ad again:
(h/t: Gateway Pundit)
3 comments:
Well despite the fact it doesn't accurately represent the time scale of a babies development in the womb by completely ignoring the first trimesters growth in favor of displaying the baby almost fully developed for the majority of the commercial, it also could appear to alluded to a misconception that Barrak Obama's parents debated aborting him.
Is this post suppose to raise an actual question as to why this commercial was not aired? I mean considering the visual information is completely skewed to appear scientific when it isn't, and other then the motivational text it was quite offensive to choose a black man as the "candidate" for being aborted. There is nothing uplifting about this in my humble opinion, but more specifically it felt derogatory and racist to me. Perhaps I am reading to far into it, but perhaps also they could have done a better job. I have see much more motivational pro-life commercials in my short life then this example.
Struck a nerve, did it?
Hey, Project Matt!
Perhaps as your "short life" lengthens, you will learn some lessons of punctuation, spelling and grammar (and maybe even some more insightful intellectual perception.}
Were you to view a sonogram of a 2-week foetus, you'd see a small blob. But when you see a sonogram of a 7+ month old foetus, you see an almost fully-developed baby! That's what happens when you don't interfere with the growing process!
Yet you would interfere in the growth of a "blob," in order to prevent its maturation into a human being?
You are, in a word, disgusting!
Post a Comment