Super Bowl Sunday. A day full of football, parties, lots of really bad-for-you food and…aborted fetuses?
Well, if Randall Terry, a 2012 Democratic candidate for President, is able to raise the funds to purchase advertising spots, 40 cities in America will be seeing such ads.
Connecticut and its neighboring states are not among those lucky enough to be seeing the ads, as they will only be airing in areas with a primary election occurring within 45 days of the game. This is due to a loophole in the FCC rules that does not allow political ads to be censored close to an election.
And just so we are all on the same page here, Terry has stated that one of his reasons for running is to be able to have his ads aired during the Super Bowl as he knows he has no actual chance of winning the nomination. I don’t really know what more could be expected of someone whose campaign is mostly centered on his intense anti-abortion stance.
The images in Terry’s ads, which have already been run in New Hampshire, feature images of bloody, aborted fetuses and religious symbols.
The images often paraded around as aborted fetuses more often than not are not actually aborted fetuses so much as they are stillborn babies and miscarriages. I cannot put my finger on why, but something tells me an aborted fetus won’t often be quite as distinguishable. The more a fetus looks like a fully developed baby the more likely it is to tug at people’s heartstrings.
And let’s not forget that these ads will be run during the same televised event in which the entire nation freaked out, and still talks about, a nipple being exposed for about 1/100ths of a second. Come on, how many people even noticed it when it happened versus those who think they do because they’ve seen it on the news multiple times a year since then?
So why is it not okay for a super brief nipple slip to make it to air, but it is okay for these graphic ads to be run? The usual outcry from those opposed is that we need to think of the children, that it’s not appropriate for them to be seeing such awful content.
Yet these are the same people who have remained strangely quiet about the prospect of Terry’s graphic anti-abortion ads making it to the air during the Super Bowl.
Are those graphic images somehow more acceptable for children to see for some reason? What about anyone else who does not wish to be subjected to the graphic nature of the ads?
The Super Bowl is a widely watched televised event. There is a very good chance that children will be among those watching the game. When it comes down to it, there is a huge difference between a blink-and-you-miss-it moment and a commercial full of graphic images.
Graphic advertisements, meaning those like Terry’s ads or those anti-smoking campaigns (really, I do not need to see someone’s innards whenever I change the TV station; I’m okay without that), do not have a place on television. It is entirely possible to raise awareness about an issue without resorting to the most shocking method possible.
What’s your take on it?