An unpopular position

[abcdan]

I think MoveOn's protest of CBS's decision not to air their ad is a little misguided.

I think Super Bowl ads are a unique animal. They are the only set of commercials that people look forward to because of their entertainment value. They are a show in themselves.

I would be livid if there was a Bush campaign ad.

I think the argument that CBS is playing a White House sponsored drug ad, and therefore is being one-sided is not a good one. As much as I don't like seeing an ad that's White House sponsored, it doesn't offend my political sensibilities as a campaign ad would. Whether it is effective or not, an anti-drug ad aims to do good for society, not a party.

I think the media has an extreme right wing bias. I think there are innumerable examples for us to protest (granted, none as high profile as the Super Bowl). I just think we're picking the wrong battle to fight this time.

[greatauntoftriplets]

1. They showed the drugs = terrorism ads last year.

If those weren't Bush ads....

[Keebs]

2. Yeah,

I'll still be watching the super bowl, I'm not one for punishing myself because of someone else's stupidity. If I still listen to Toby Keith, then I'll still watch the super bowl.

[LeahMira]

3. An anti-drug ad is...

... more in the category of a public service announcement.

The Super Bowl ads are apparently sort of a showcase for very well-done ads for products.

If they are going to allow a public service type of ad to air, then they should allow all public service type ads to air, or at least the cream of the crop of public service announcements. The MoveOn ad certainly fits that requirement. If they won't show the MoveOn ad, then they shouldn't be showing anti-drug ads either.

I can understand the Super Bowl people not wanting to have their commercial breaks turn into a political campaign, but the simplest way for them to do that in a fair way would seem to me to be to require that all ads shown be for products.