Super Bowl Ads: Is Protest Around Focus On The Family Out Of Line?

Protest surrounding Focus on the Family's allegedly pro-life Super Bowl ad is "puzzling and dismaying," and those "would-be censors are on the wrong track," according to an editorial in the Sunday N.Y. TIMES. Instead of trying to "silence an opponent, advocates for allowing women to make their own decisions about whether to have a child should be using the Super Bowl spotlight to convey what their movement is all about: protecting the right of women like Pam Tebow to make their private reproductive choices." In addition, CBS was "right to change its policy of rejecting paid advocacy commercials from groups other than political candidates." Viewers can "watch and judge for themselves," or they can "get up from the couch and get a sandwich" (N.Y. TIMES, 1/31). Former Catholics for Choice President Frances Kissling and former Naral Pro-Choice America President Kate Michelman in a special to the WASHINGTON POST wrote, "Instead of trying to block or criticize the Focus on the Family ad, the pro-choice movement needs its own Super Bowl strategy" (WASHINGTON POST, 1/31).

FREEDOM OF CHANGING THE CHANNEL: In Detroit, Drew Sharp wrote Super Bowl viewers who disagree with the Focus on the Family ad "can choose to take their television remote in hand when the ad appears on CBS and change the channel." The organization is "selling a product, selling a message, selling an illusion." It is "just a commercial" and "nobody's forcing anybody to watch it." Sharp wrote the spot, which stars former Univ. of Florida QB Tim Tebow and his mother, in many ways "isn't any different than the beer commercial creating an image of masculine cool promoting that if you have the right brand in your hand, hot-looking women will instinctively run to your side" (DETROIT FREE-PRESS, 1/31). In Orlando, Darryl Owens wrote CBS "hasn't caved to the negative blitz" thus far, "nor should it" (ORLANDO SENTINEL, 1/30). In Jacksonville, Gene Frenette noted without "anyone seeing the ad, this has turned into a debate on whether a football celebrity should be using a Super Bowl platform to promote a cause." We live in a "country of free speech and free enterprise," and CBS and Tebow are "merely taking advantage of those benefits." This really is "nothing more than CBS doing whatever it takes to pad its bank account" (FLORIDA TIMES-UNION, 1/30).

Tebow Still Facing Controversy Over Focus On The Family Super Bowl Spot

CHOMPING AT THE BIT: In Orlando, Mike Bianchi wrote the Super Bowl ad "transcends anything Tebow has ever done on the football field." It transforms him "from football player to political figure" (ORLANDO SENTINEL, 1/31). USA TODAY's Tom Krattenmaker writes of Tebow, "Call him naive or call him courageous and principled ... but few will be calling him non-controversial after this" (USA TODAY, 2/1). In Las Vegas, Ed Graney wrote one thing that "shouldn't be questioned is why Tebow would choose to be featured in such a commercial around the exact same time his NFL future is being dissected." Graney added, "What happened to the days when the only controversial thing about Super Bowl commercials was how much skin the Victoria Secret model showed?" (LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, 1/30). Media Research Center President L. Brent Bozell III in a special to the N.Y. POST wrote the "worst part of this overwrought controversy is the mud thrown at Tim Tebow's image before he plays a down of pro football." Making an ad like this one "ought to help advertisers see an endorser with character, not your stereotypical ego-addled, misbehaving professional athlete." It takes "maturity we're not used to seeing from pro athletes when they're a target of controversy" (N.Y. POST, 1/30).