Before proceeding, you might want to read the full text of the WFN article at http://www.wfn.org/2004/11/msg00231.html

Obviously, networks must avoid irritating their major population demographic (which impacts their ability to generate revenues through advertising), while at the same time the public does not want them to engage in censorship. With this in mind, the question for debate is:

What specific criteria should the media use for determining whether or not a given advertisement is "too controversial" for airing on a television network?

What specific criteria should the media use for determining whether or not a given advertisement is "too controversial" for airing on a television network?

Since we don't own the networks, and the government can only regulate the media so far, I am not sure that we have much say in the matter. It appears to me that the media is more concerned about upsetting the supposed moral majority than anything else. Begs the question, do those in the moral majority watch TV, given that it has become even more of a wasteland lately? I am referring to the "reality" shows, which IMHO is equivalent to fertilizer, but not as useful.
I like the message as given in the commercial. Jesus was known to associate with just about anybody, much to the dismay of the established church of the time.
But, there are those in the far right Christian world who won't admit that.

What specific criteria should the media use for determining whether or not a given advertisement is "too controversial" for airing on a television network?

An international parallel might be useful here. While it has no legal force, the British Advertising Standards Authority has the expectation that all advertising (on TV or elsewhere) shoud be "legal, decent, honest and truthful".

The "legal" bit means that an advert can't break any existing laws - for example of libel, or any race relations legislation.

It has to be "decent", so it can't use foul language or nudity or other material likely to cause offense (e.g. naked flesh in a shower gel commercial is okay, as long as no female nipples are visible, male nipples being considered decent ; dead bodies are pretty much off-limits; etc. ). The test is what a reasonable person would consider indecent, and not necessarily what one particular person finds offensive.

And it has to be "honest & truthful" - it can't make any claims that are false, e.g. skin creams can only claim to "reduce the appearance of ageing", not make your skin actually younger.

Beyond that most anything is fair game.

If a similar code were used in the USA, this ad might breach the decency idea, but it would be a bit of a stretch. I wouldn't say this advert should be taken off the air because of it's content.

However, in any situation, it's never wise for a business to send out a message that is likely to alienate more potential customers than it attracts, unless they are setting out to be an edgy and niche brand. I doubt very much that this church wants to be edgy and niche.

It's very sad, but if this advert generates hostility and not increased church attendances, then it should probably be pulled by the church itself, as it would be a clear waste of money.

It's hard to achieve the goal of preventing controversy, if we are required to give specific criteria beforehand. Soon as we specify, some other (uncovered? ) condition will pop up. Or out.

On territory like this, the old saw 'we'll know it when we see it' might work best.

In this case, it seems possible that all may not be as it seems. The Networks could have entered into some kind of 'consultative' process that would have kept the matter out of view. Instead, it almost appears that they granted the Church their wish - even spicing it up for them. We all know about the advertisement, the message, and the plight of the messenger, huh?

It looks to me like the UCC Church IS trying to be edgy,in a sense and reach a niche. That niche being those who feel alienated by other churches.

Heres a link to the Ad in question: UCC Ad

IMHO the ad is basically saying that the church should not be turning anyone away, and should be representing everyone. The UCC is a church that does open their doors to, and respects all (at least according to them).

And here's a link to the Talking Points Memo Blog, where they posted CBS's reasoning: T.P.M. on CBS's Response



Well lets see, they run ads on political referendum issues, they run ads against drugs, they allow televangelists on their network (though paid air time spots (infomercials)), and they allow countless issue advocacy group ads on issues like environmental policy, gun control, etc (both of which are far from a national consensus). They seem a little hypocritical to me.



Yet somehow just recently they had no problem making money by running MoveOn.Org, or SwiftBoatVet Ads. The Hypocrisy continues.




I understand that some might find this ad "wrong", in the sense that they feel that their church's views are right, while others are wrong. I just don't see that opposition and controversy needs to rise to the level of censorship here. If this ad featured a University rather than a Church would there be any controversy at all?

What specific criteria should the media use for determining whether or not a given advertisement is "too controversial" for airing on a television network?

Well Obviously it has to be a business decision for the most part. Will running this ad cost them viewers, which will cost them ratings, which in turn will reduce their advertising revenues? The networks seem to feel it will, I just don't see it. The ad does not specifically point to any other church, it merely shows what the UCC feels is wrong when it comes to operating a church.

The networks still won't allow condom ads, claiming decency standards. Yet, take a look at the level of sex and violence on TV these days, not to mention all the sexual enhancement and feminine hygiene ads they run, Where are the decency standards in these cases?

It seems to me that CBS and NBC are approaching this ad, not from a public interest standpoint, but from a personal interest one. And this comes from someone who does not believe in organized religion, so it's not a bias on my part.

Now based on The Rules We don't debate Religion here on AD. So this topic is walking a VERY fine line. Please avoid debating religious Philosophy when discussing this issue. I know it is hard, but if we don't avoid that aspect of this, I guarantee this topic will close. I think this is a topic worth discussing, and would hate to see it shut down because we couldn't keep it within the The Rules .

If you would like to discuss the Religious Merits of this issue AD seems to recommend: Belief Net. Or at least there is a link to it in the Principles and Personal Philosophy Forum.

I agree that the UCC Church is trying to send out a positive, inclusive message here. That doesn't really matter. The opinions of viewers and commercial sponsors are the basis on which adversements are accepted. If the networks feel that the message of the UCC Church (or any other message, such as BND, here) would potentially alienate customers or lead sponsors away from advertising on their station, they reject it. Short of some sort of government-intrusion I would be absolutely against, this is their right. They don't have to give equal time to the UCC Church and their message, whether good or bad.



Exactly. But, they don't have to be consistent. They are free to accept or deny advertisement individually based on their own perception of how each message would effect their bottom line. I might feel they are wrong, but I don't own the station.

I'd expect the criteria would (or should) depend on which timespots and between which type of program(s) the advertisement is placed. I wouldn't expect a condom advertisement (some of the networks do allow them) during the show 'Sex in the City' to alienate anyone. It might be inappropriate at certain other times.

In the aftermath of the Janet Jackson-Justin Timberlake SuperBowl fiasco, a number of circumspect commentators explored the diversifying set of standards by which our various media play.

Specifically, it was pointed out that the satellite channels are regulated (if that is the word..) very differently from the traditional television networks. If it's bounced off a microwave reflector in the sky, it's cool, but if it comes from a land-based antenna at VHF frequencies, it's an issue.

To an increasingly significant degree, the Internet is moving in on territory previously held by broadcast media. At the same time, components of the Web are progressively emulating historical media formats, while continuing to assert that they are fully opt-in services.

The upshot is, there is a drastic disconnect in the standards that apply to different media-delivery technologies. Yet the separation of the delivery vehicles is rapidly disappearing. Many watch TV and listen to radio, over the Internet. The television industry is turning itself inside out, trying to incorporate the Internet game.

And all the while, we have this radical divergence of standards.