It is clear that standards for television in regards to sex, language, etc. has slipped over the last ten years, and it is certainly only a matter of time until the PETA ad is OK for the Super Bowl. How long do you think it will be until no one blinks at this ad? Justify your timeline. Do you think that my four year old should have seen this ad? Should I be forced to not let her watch the Super Bowl?
http://www.peta.org/content/standalone/VeggieLove/Default.aspx
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wow. That was uncomfortable to watch. We're from a generation that is definitely very jaded and use to seeing these sexually explicit and vulgar ads but I feel like most of us still know when something has gone too far. I'd imagine, however, that the generation after ours will be much less shocked by racy ads, and the next generation even less so as so many companies are turning towards sexually explicit marketing to get consumers' attention. As companies continue to try to out-shock one another with their advertising, I'm sure we'll get to a point where unless you're watching Sunday morning cartoons, you'll be getting an eyeful of vegetables and naked women.
ReplyDeleteAs far as your four year old not being able to watch the Super Bowl, I wonder if cable providers, or even somehow DVR devices, will one day let you put parental controls on commercials so kids won't be subjected to sex so early on. Just a thought, but something tells me that's not the most profitable idea for them...
The general rule about regular broadcast TV has been, essentially, "if there's a way this message (in the form of radio program, TV show, movie, etc.) could reach and affect the entire population of the country, it must conform to the prevailing moral standard," since the airwaves and what goes over them are considered a public resource (owned by the government) and are expected to provide a public good. So since sex is generally considered a private thing, this ad wouldn't be allowable on regular broadcast TV until sex in public places is also ok. On the flip side, the fact that it's on the Internet, and there's easy access to it, shows that in some ways it's allowable now.
ReplyDeleteIf Budweiser made the same ad, but with beers instead of vegetables, would anyone have complained? Not very likely. The beer companies have used sex to sell their products for years. It's the coupling of the sexually-charged presentation with the controversial message by a group with an obviously countercultural agenda that made the ad troubling enough to get it pulled off the Super Bowl lineup.
I think there's a bit of a double standard at work here; what's ok for one group becomes not ok when it's used by a less mainstream group.
-Isaac
wow, that is a crazy commertial but thats whats Super Bowl does. I agree that all big named coorprates do it why should it be different for PETA. as we all know sex sells especially to the millions watching the game. In other countries they do not bleep out sex or curse words on their magazines and television, so why do we try and shelter our children so much? But on that website I always wind up feeling bad about not being a vegetarian, those poor animals.
ReplyDeleteThe video, in my opinion is a media ploy. If PETA got their video banned and then made a whole lot of noise about it. Naturally curious people would visit their website to "educate" themselves on what exactly NBC considers a inappropriate commercial. In which, as soon as the banned commercial finished immediately afterward PETA could make their plug and tell you 10 reasons to become a vegetarian. Its cheaper and better publicity to get your video banned than put on TV.
ReplyDelete