The National Council of Churches has issued a nice statement on the refusal of NBC and CBS to air the bizarrely controversial advertisement by the United Church of Christ.
Advocacy advertising abounds on TV: agribusinesses, drug manufacturers, gambling casinos, oil companies, even some government agencies regularly expose viewers to messages advocating their products and programs, in the interest of shaping public attitudes and building support for their points of view.
Are only the ideas and attitudes of faith groups now off limits? Constitutional guarantees of religious liberty and freedom of speech, not to mention common fairness, beg for leadership by the FCC to assure that America’s faith community has full and equal access to the nation’s airwaves, to deliver positive messages that seek to build and enrich the quality of life.
If you watch evening network TV you may well, I suppose, think that such an ad would be completely out of place — there are no grisly murders, no-one has sex with someone they don’t know, there is no irrational anger, and the bouncers do not physically assault the people they turn away. Even the humiliation of the rejected congregants is mild compared with that heaped on numerous participants in reality shows. I suppose that is what makes the ad so controversial. Or perhaps it is part of a conspiracy to improve UCC’s visibility. If you want to help pile on to the networks, UCC has some suggestions here. Oh, and if you’re not American, and don’t live in the States, please watch the ad; it’ll cheer you up.
Good for the NCC. One of the things which has been so strange about this controversy is that the religious message presented in the ad is a perfectly liberal one, thus questioning not only the conservative obsession with the idea that the mainstream media discriminates against religious conservatives, but also the presumption of many liberal believers that all the noise coming from the right about the tone-deafnesses to religion by the state and big business is groundless. In short, the religious right isn’t always wrong, but it isn’t always just them either. Stange bedfellows indeed.
I’ve seen the ad, I think it is really well done. If I may make broad generalizations (and why stop now?) I suspect the networks have become so generally anti-religious that they don’t differentiate between liberal and conservative religious messages.
That’s interesting Russell — you’re right of course, and I hadn’t thought of it. I was careful in my own letter to do three things; first to specify that I am not a religious believer or a member of the UCC; second to point out the reprehensibleness of the values that their sponsor (and programs) routinely promote; and third to say that if they had done this to a church which espoused different values from the UCC (values I had much less sympathy with, in other words) they would still be misusing their power over the public culture, a power that I think they shouldn’t have.
What about this Sebastian; they are not so much anti-religious as anti-the-public-expression-of-religious-sentiment. Of course, that amounts to the same thing when they are controlling the airwaves. But my conjecture is that it is religious expression, rather than religion per se, to which they are hostile.
I don’t think it has to do with religion at all. It has to do with controversy. NBC and CBS are afraid that if they aired the commercial, offended audiences would complain to them and, even worse, to their sponsors. This was seen with CBS’s refusal to air the MoveOn SuperBowl ad, with the cancellation of the Reagan miniseries, and the cause of the current UCC issue.
I’m not sure I think the distinction between restricting religious expression and disliking religion is a distinction I think is important. I would tend to suspect that, in US television networks, the interest in restricting relgious expression is most likely fueled by a dilike of religion. Furthermore, being against religious expression while actively promoting nearly every other kind of expression, including huge amounts of violence, suggests that the networks have some special problem with religion.
You may be right, Sebastian, that what the nerworks do show implies a special hostility to religion. But I think it’s more accurate to say they have an aversion to the particularity of many religious claims. I mean, think about it; especially at this time of year, there’s all sorts of feel-good religious sentiment, complete with angels and whatnot, parading across the tv screen. I think the issue is the explicitness of the UCC’s message; they invoked Jesus, and used His example as a way to invite people to attend their church, quietly condemning the practices of others (including some other churches!) that differ from their particular inclusive approach. There is an unnecessary, and ultimately discriminatory, hypersenstivity to the perils of specific religious messages out there. Religion is fine if it can be transformed into gooey sentimentality. What too many people (including far too many religious conservatives) don’t realize is that liberal religiousity can be pretty specific too. (Of course, as Scott notes, this hypersensitivity to specificity is probably driven by at least as much by a fear of public controversy as anything else…with the potential result that all arguably “divisive” claims get watered down, whether political or religious. That just leaves sex, violence and slapstick humiliation, which apparently “everyone” agrees upon.)
Maybe the UCC ad wasn’t as accurate as the DanRather memo. /sarcasim
OT
http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/var/am_sup.htm
http://instapundit.com/archives/019440.php
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/lgf-fallujahchem-slideshow.php
The ad was quite properly and understandably controversial, and it has nothing to do with the split-second scene showing a gay couple. The ad is infuriating to all of the millions of Christians from other denominations who are maligned and slandered as being so racist that they employ bouncers to keep out minorities. Perhaps you cannot quite understand this perspective, but imagine that a competing university produced an ad that showed your university employing bouncers to keep blacks off the campus. Wouldn’t you be upset over such a blatant misrepresentation?
The ad is infuriating to all of the millions of Christians from other denominations who are maligned and slandered as being so racist that they employ bouncers to keep out minorities.
Is that right? No-one else is mentioned. Could the ad be challenging a widespread view of non-believers that Christians exercise a certain kind of exclusivity that Jesus wouldn’t himself endorse? I would be upset if a competing University said that it, alone, was non-racist, or (more-or-less wrongly) accused mine specifically of being racist. But I don’t think I’d be worried if it sought to claim that it was not racist and implied that some others (as opposed to all other) were racist. I believe some are.
What too many people (including far too many religious conservatives) don’t realize is that liberal religiousity can be pretty specific too.
Russell, I’m sure you’re aware that conventional wisdom in the US holds that “liberal religiosity” is a contradiction in terms. I know you don’t believe that, but it’s becoming an increasingly dominant view, given the Religious Right’s ability to yell more loudly than their liberal counterparts.
“There is an unnecessary, and ultimately discriminatory, hypersenstivity to the perils of specific religious messages out there. Religion is fine if it can be transformed into gooey sentimentality.”
If I may make a distinction that may be hyper-fine, I suspect that US networks are fine with gooey sentimentality in all its forms. Gooey sentimentality that is also blandly religious sneaks in for that reason.
Interesting that NBC and CBS voluntarily chose to become gatekeepers of the “Church of tv”. Of course, I don’t know anything about US network tv-church relations in the US, but taken together with the statement of the church council you quote, could the metapho be an attempt of religious organisations to get more network exposure by threatening to politically mobilize against the frequency-privilege?
I disagree with Jack that the primary aim of the ad was to slander other denominations; however, there was clearly an element of distinctionism in the ad. The UCC wants it to be known, particularly by those who may be exploring Christianity, that they are a liberal, inclusive church. The message was no doubt perfectly acceptable; but the fact that is was a church saying it, and making an implied doctrinal claim to boot, however, is probably which set off network executives’ alarm-bells. Think about it: how many anti-racism public service announcements or ads have you seen? Dozens. Why is it, though, that when one is connected to a “worship with us” message it becomes controversial? My guess: because for a church to put their doctrine, their religiosity, on comparative display is just not gooey enough to slip by the decisionmakers’ paranoia.
I think Jack does have a point: they could’ve invited all these people without smearing the competition.
Commercial advertisers rarely do things like this; Volvo doesn’t advertise their cars as ‘if you buy Honda you’re more likely to die’. Maybe they do sometimes, but that would be rather unusual.
So, why wouldn’t these UCC folks film another ad that promotes their business without insulting the competitors and try again?
You all miss the point. They would have loved to run this demostration of a “cult” justifying sinful, destructive behavior. They didn’t do it because in fairness they would have to run ads from the evanglical community. THAT… they could not stomach. If they ran the pro-homosexual ad, to be fair and balanced, they should run ads documenting the depravity, drug and alcohol abuse, grave mental and physical health conesquences of homosexuality. Or we would have more evidence of their left-wing propagandistic nature!
You all miss the point. They would have loved to run the pro-homosexuality ad. But if fair and balanced, they would have to run ads documenting the sever mental and physical heath risks, drug addiction, alcohol addiction, NAMBLA talking life style that is so prevalent among homosexuals. THIS… they could not do or be perceived as left-wing propagandistics. We all know they are left wing propagandists but they are still trying to present the illusion of fairness.
I think Scott has it mostly right—this is about avoiding controversy. Not so much because they don’t want people to complain to sponsors, but because they don’t want people to change the channel.
I don’t think it was anything in particular about the UCC ad that bothered the networks. Rather, the issue was likely with the next ad: what to do when the next denomination comes in and says something from the other side (“we’re not watered down, like some denominations”, or “you’ll go to hell if you’re not one of us”, or “join us this season in praying for the conversion of the Jewish people”). Better a clear policy against evangelizing ads than to pick-and-choose, thus being forced to accept or reject the hypothetical offensive ad on the merits (and thus offend that particular constituency in a much more visceral way).
“Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations,” reads an explanation from CBS, “and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks.”
http://www.stillspeaking.com/news/release2.html
Think about it: how many anti-racism public service announcements or ads have you seen? Dozens. Why is it, though, that when one is connected to a “worship with us” message it becomes controversial?
But, to the best of my recollection, I haven’t seen one anti-homophobia public service announcement or ad. Surely that’s a large part of what might make the ad controversial; while no major denomination excludes people by race anymore, lots and lots of denominations demand that their gay and lesbian members remain celibate, and that is even something of an issue politically.
So it’s at least possible that the controversy is related to the message of tolerance of homosexuality—let me repeat, a message that is explicitly rejected by our ruling political party—rather than to the religious message. In the current political climate that message really sticks out.
I also thought that it might be possible that the bits about race are meant to say that excluding gay couples is as bad as excluding non-white people, rather than to say that other churches are racist. But I don’t really think that’s that convincing, so Jack V does have a point there.
(abb1—You must not watch football on TV. Miller and Budweiser are running so many negative ads they must be trying to drive down turnout.)
Thank you, ws?; I didn’t see your post when I wrote that.
and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman
This, I believe, was the crux of the controversy. If they had simply used the “no evangelizing” line at first and left it at that, the whole issue would have drawn a lot less attention. Given the very convincing “slippery slope” arguments offered above, I don’t really have a problem with that policy.
It was mainly the nonsensical (and chilling) reference to the “Executive Branch” opposition to gay marriage (the ad itself makes no reference to gay marriage whatsoever) that set off the controversy.
No, I don’t watch football, but aren’t those beer ads kinda lighthearted - as opposed to saying directly: our competitors are racists and all ‘round bigots (even though it may be true in some cases).
I mean, obviously no major denomination is going to stop a homosexual from attending; even the most reactionary folks like Jerry Falwell always insist that they hate the sin and love the sinner. I still think this ad is a cheap shot.
Not that anything’s wrong with that, it’s just that I don’t necessarily see these UCC people as innocent victims.
Harry,
Excellent post and I agree completely. Bravo to the National Council of Churches for their fortitude. I clicked through the link to assist in “piling on the networks.” And the UCC “God is Still Speaking” ad actually did cheer me up. Thanks.
—TGM
abb1—But I’d been saving up that line about negative beer campaigning for weeks! Yes, this is a different sort of thing.
About “obviously no major denomination is going to stop a homosexual from attending”—the thing is that it’s a gay couple. Lots of major denominations will stop gay couples from attending. I don’t see anything cheap about that part of it.
Is that right? No-one else is mentioned. Could the ad be challenging a widespread view of non-believers that Christians exercise a certain kind of exclusivity that Jesus wouldn’t himself endorse?No one else is explicitly mentioned, but skilled videographers know how to leave a visual impression without saying things explicitly. Like the commenter above intimated, if you see a Volvo commercial that starts off with 3 or 4 people crashing and dying in other other cars, while people who drove Volvos alone survived, the commercial wouldn’t have to name the other cars explicitly. The implication would be obvious: Drive another car, and you’ll die.
That might be relatively harmless — although untrue — in the car scenario. But with something as part of your core identity as where you go to church, you might be naturally prickly when a commercial heavy-handedly implies that other denominations exclude minorities by using bouncers.
Reverse the situation: Imagine the Southern Baptists producing a commercial showing people going to hell because they attended some other unnamed religious service, while ending on the happy note that Southern Baptists go to heaven. That would be roughly equally offensive. Get the picture?
In re purported general hostility to religion:
I don’t have television now, so I haven’t seen any prime time in a couple years.
Do they not run “7th Heaven” any more? Or “Touched by an Angel”, in new or in reruns?
Are there no more Hallmark-card ads for the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints?
The most controversial part of the ad is the tagline: “God is still speaking.” To those who believe that the KJV was handed down on Mount Horeb in a bound volume to Moses, red lettesr and all, the idea that Christianity is not something petrified that we must fossilize ourselves to match, but a living conversation with the Divine, that we are called to enter into, is a horrifying notion.
I know it’s suspiciously like what the rabbis have been doing all along, including one fellow from Nazareth, and that it’s rather hubristic to think that we can cram the Eternal into a box we can carry around in our pockets, but still it isn’t just Evangelicals who would be up in arms about it - the conservative RC base from which I (and Deal Hudson, and Michael Novak) hail will be shrieking “Aaah! Teilhardianism!” and making hex signs to ward off creeping heresy…
Heresy is also religion, to its adherents. The silliness here is the conceit that the networks are independent actors making decisions out of economic self-interest. Maybe 20 years ago. Not now. Now they’re the p.r. machine for the men behind the curtain. Scalia’s in New York saying publicly that the separation of church and state was a mistake. Scalia’s probably headed for Chief Justice.
And though I’m sure we all agree it’s pure co-incidence both Rather and Brokaw have bailed virtually simultaneously, there is a thread…
Are there no more Hallmark-card ads for the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints?
I think there are, but that’s different: those spots are basically variations on “Yay God! [A message from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints],” as opposed to “Yay Mormoms!” or “Come worship at our church.” I can see where it’s a significant distinction.
Still, even a “Yay God!” message is religious. I haven’t seen one of those ads in recent memory (unless you count seeing one being shot in my apartment complex) but showing those ads would indicate a lack of hostility to religion—though it might not indicate a lack of hostility to the particularity of religion, as Russell mentioned above. None of which is to say that they resemble the UCC ad in any way.
>> Could the ad be challenging a widespread view of non-believers that Christians exercise a certain kind of exclusivity that Jesus wouldn’t himself endorse?
harry, whence did this speculation spring? And why pander to it by depicting a church with burly bouncers rejecting people on the basis of their appearances — skin color, for instance? The ad was offensive.
>> The UCC wants it to be known, particularly by those who may be exploring Christianity, that they are a liberal, inclusive church.
russell arben fox, how did the ad convey that message? What was particularly liberal about depicting other churches — non-UCC churches, mind — as barring people on the basis of skin color, for example?
If their doctrine is to bash other churches, then, it was not a gooey message.
>> So, why wouldn’t these UCC folks film another ad that promotes their business without insulting the competitors and try again?
abb1, I second the question.
>> Lots of major denominations will stop gay couples from attending.
Matt Weiner, a bald assertion. First, there did not appear to be anything in the ad that one could interpret as a depiction of homosexuality. Second, even you detected a hint of that, wasn’t it rather snivelling for the UCC to not be more forthright and open about their actual doctrine regarding same-sex sexual relations?
Matt Weiner, solid point about the “Yay, God!” ads. While I disagree with the drift of the the official explanatons offered by the broadcasters and by UCC, it seems to me they all made business decisions in their own interests and that all of them — particularly the UCC — have benefited in the spinning instead of broadcasting the advertisement.
oh well, for unhappy gay christians, there’s always the last Morrissey video…
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review