Street Prophets and United Church of Christ blogger Chuck Currie report on a TV ad unveiled March 27 by the United Church of Christ.
The ad’s title: Ejector Seat.
The theme: Jesus didn’t turn people away. Nor should Christian churches.
The ads have already been banned from the major U.S. broadcast networks; they will run on cable. In response to the ban, Accessibleairwaves.org calls for the mainstream media to stop silencing mainline and liberal religious perspectives in advertising and in news coverage. The networks are not impartially banning all advocacy ads; Talk To Action notes that at least one of the networks has aired ads for Focus on the Family.
Go to God Is Still Speaking to view the Ejector Seat ad and last year’s Bouncer ad, which also was rejected by TV networks. Another ad, “Ejection Pew,” will be released April 3.
Once again I’m pleased as punch to be a pastor in the progressive UCC. The new ad is a hoot, and I’m glad to see it includes two gay who quietly sit down in a pew before getting the ‘ejector’ treatment. CBS’s comment in rejecting the ad is that they will run such ads when all churches are accepting of all people. Huh?! The irony last year was that the ‘bouncer’ ad was run every 15 min. for days on CNN because the networks’ rejection of the ad was a story in itself – which meant millions of dollars of free advertising for the UCC. 🙂
Getting an ad rejected making it therefore newsworthy is a tried and true method since Bennington’s print campaigns two decades ago.
ABC’s rejection of the ad comes on the heels of its rejecting a Kentucky Fried Chicken ad designed as a “tivo-killer” because it had a “subliminal message.” (The ad was designed to make you watch it frame-by-frame to get a coupon code).
All this is happening at a time that advertising agencies are seeing TV advertising as having rapidly declining value. My guess is that the ad was designed to be rejected, which will only help it gain a life as viral video.
The rejection of the UCC advertisement by the mainstream media (i.e.e Fox, ABC, NBC, etc.) is outrageous. It is an outrageous and unacceptable rejection of free speech in America. If this continues to be a problem I think that the UCC and other Churches should sue these networks. It’s extremely telling when a network writes the UCC that they reject the UCC ads because they are “too controversial” and depict gay people during a time when the White House is considering a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman. So does President Bush control the media now? Welcome to Fascist America.
Wait, how is a corporation rejecting an ad an infringement of free speech? I don’t recall the first amendment guaranteeing the right to be put on the air.
I don’t see an infringement of free speech. I do see a blatant bias among corporate media against unconventional viewpoints and against information that challenges conventional wisdom.
I worked for a national newswire for more than 10 years. During that time, at my wire and at rival newswires, I frequently sensed that editors were applying their own “common sense” assumptions to stories.
They would not deliberately steer stories in a liberal or conservative direction. Quite the opposite: In the interest of keeping stories short and simple, editors would strip out news details that veered from what the editor assumed to be a middle ground. So the left, the right, and alternative views all got cheated. But at least the local newspapers’ advertisers and shareholders were happy.
Eventually readers either got bored or felt shortchanged, and they began to look online for ths stories that they weren’t (and aren’t) getting from the gatekeepers.
Mike said: “I don’t see an infringement of free speech. I do see a blatant bias among corporate media against unconventional viewpoints and against information that challenges conventional wisdom.”
Just a small clarification if you don’t mind, Mike, but it seems to me that it is a blatant bias among corporate media against viewpoints that have been percieved to be unconventional.
I’m quite sure that the viewpoints and wisdom portrayed in the ads in question are much more conventional than the anti-gay ones. That, perhaps, should give us some insight into where our vulnerabilities are as a community.
Skemono at March 29, 2006 12:32 AM
“Wait, how is a corporation rejecting an ad an infringement of free speech? I don’t recall the first amendment guaranteeing the right to be put on the air.”
Mike Airhart at March 29, 2006 12:41 AM
I don’t see an infringement of free speech.
Guys,
normally I would agree with you that a corporation can adopt whatever it wants regarding what messages it wants to portray.
However, in this instance we are talking about the public airwaves. Network television does not own the airwaves but networks (or local affiliates) are licensed to use them.
If it could be shown conclusively that a network (or all of them) deliberately hid one prominant religious viewpoint while promoting (or allowing access to) another, this would be a violation of the public trust. It might even be a violation of constitutional rights, by argument that the Government cannot grant exclusive use to a network that takes a position on religion.
Cable companies are (at present) to a greater extent exempt from Government control and can pretty much do as they please. And the UHF frequencies can probably argue that they are for niche audiences.
But if a network only allows anti-gay religious viewpoints and never pro-gay religious viewpoints, I think they are slipping into dangerous territory.
Timothy Said:
If it could be shown conclusively that a network (or all of them) deliberately hid one prominant religious viewpoint while promoting (or allowing access to) another, this would be a violation of the public trust.
I would agree up to this point, but I don’t think we can be talking about censorship in a First Amendment sense. And the “public trust” aspect associated with the broadcast spectrum seems to have blurred a great deal over the years and perhaps that’s even reasonable. That spectrum is shrinking in importance every day as other methods for delivering information expand into our lives. Most of that policy was enacted when the entire nation received it’s broadcasts on vacuum tube radio sets tuned somewhere within the consumer AM broadcast range – few options.
I still think broadcasters should be held to a standard of service to the community in exchange for their use of the airwaves, I just don’t want to confuse bias, agenda or even stupidity with censorship. First Amendment style censorship needs to remain the well defined, heinous evil that it is.
David
While broadcasters supposedly act in the “public trust”, regulations are exceptionally loose as to what that means.
If it could be shown conclusively that a network (or all of them) deliberately hid one prominant religious viewpoint while promoting (or allowing access to) another, this would be a violation of the public trust.
We currently have religious broadcasters on TV and radio — local and network. They deliberately hide one prominant religious viewpoint while promoting another all the time. And they are well within the law to do so.
Jim Burroway at March 29, 2006 03:59 PM
“We currently have religious broadcasters on TV and radio — local and network.”
Yes. Which is why I said “And the UHF frequencies can probably argue that they are for niche audiences.” I don’t think (though I may be mistaken) that the religious broadcasters are on the main dial channels.
As David points out, the networks and the public trust are becoming less relevant.
But let’s be specific. It appears that:
1. NBC accepted religous advertising from Focus on the Family but did not accept religious advertising from the United Church of Christ
2. The reason given was because UCC indicated acceptance of gay couples (God’s acceptance of all people is an article of their faith)
3. NBC found UCC’s religious position too controversial BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT, along with other religious groups like FOTF, disagrees with UCC’S doctrinal position on gay couples
Therefore, UCC’s ads were disallowed because of the CONTENT of their religious message. The rejection message stongly implied that the networks were hesitant (or fearful) to allow a religious message that in in conflict with the religious beliefs of the President.
If (and we really don’t know) the Federal Government gave vhf contracts only to media organizations that discriminated in favor of or against a particular religious viewpoint, this would clearly be a violation of the first amendment.
What about viewpoint discrimination?
The ADF used a theory like it in its (successful, settled out of court) suit against the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (October 14, 2004) over the LWO ads on bus shelters.
UCC should do the same.
If (and we really don’t know) the Federal Government gave vhf contracts only to media organizations that discriminated in favor of or against a particular religious viewpoint, this would clearly be a violation of the first amendment.
Yes, that may be true, but it’s purely hypothetical and pretty much beside the point.
“it’s purely hypothetical and pretty much beside the point.”
yeah… I guess I am delving into the what-if’s.