So like everyone else, I bought into the hype.
I thought the Tebow ad was going to “tell his mother’s story”. It did not.
She still called him a “miracle baby”, but that is not that big a deal.
I apologize for the previous blog post. I wrote what I wrote based on speculation that others made about the content of the ad. They were wrong.
But I am leaving the previous post up. The reason for that is that in my opinion Focus on the Family wanted us to think they were going to send the message that was speculated. They wanted us to form opinions and discuss the potential ramifications of an ad featuring a “miracle baby”.
I had an opinion and I stick to it, despite the ad falling short of what everyone assumed it was going to say.
And I am not going to Focus on the Family’s website to read the Tebow’s story. I don’t really care.
The actual ad is below. Judge for yourself…
Related posts:
[...] UPDATE: RETRACTION AND APOLOGY HERE [...]
yeah the ad itself didn’t talk about a pro-life message and was not offensive in and of itself, but the ad still IS for a pro life organization and directs you to their pro-life website. I still don’t think organizations like that should be allowed to advertise during the superbowl.
Correct. But that was not the issue I had with the ad when I heard what it was going to be.
I don’t care who advertises during the Superbowl, as long as the message is not reckless. I don’t expect all the ads in the Superbowl to reflect my values. The world woul dbe a very boring / dangerous place if we all agreed on everything and we could never express our opinions in a public forum.
“The reason for that is that in my opinion Focus on the Family wanted us to think they were going to send the message that was speculated. They wanted us to form opinions and discuss the potential ramifications of an ad featuring a “miracle baby”.”
If you had listened to any of the interviews with the people from focus on the family, instead of just listening to the groups which hate focus on the family, you would have known that the ad was always intended to be harmless. If people did not instinctualy attack Focus on the Family, nobody would have noticed the ad or talked about.
Just because they say it “was intended to be harmless” means nothing. What they call harmless another might call harmful.
They could have said disclosed the content of the ad and all the ones who were attacking would have backed off. Instead they let it go on because they wanted the attention and they have no problem with the reckless message that others foisted upon them. That us just my opinion…
They did!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123035871&ft=1&f=1048
The group’s spokesman, Gary Schneeberger, says the ad is not political. “I can tell you there’s nothing controversial about it, there’s nothing political about it,” Schneeberger says. “It is simply a very inspirational 30 seconds about celebrating life and celebrating families.”
The problem is that nobody believed them, because they see them as villans.
Wow.
I am shocked that this did make the mainstream media. Really.
The AP story, the Yahoo new story, the ABC news story, the Washington Post story all went with a much more elaborate ad, And they were not corrected or retracted.
This story is getting more and more interesting…
Even TODAY, media outlets are misreporting the content of the ad!
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9DNN0RG3&show_article=1
Quote: “Heisman winner Tim Tebow and his mother talk about her difficult pregnancy with him and how she was advised to end the pregnancy”
Why should organizations you don’t agree with not be allowed to advertise during the superbowl?
Abbi:
Are you talking to me? Because I never said that. I don’t care who advertising so long as the ad is responsible in its message.
It you are talking to AE, I can’t answer for her…