porthos is right suggesting that the UCC is doing a disservice to all churches with this approach. But I'm not convinced they really care about that. This is an admittedly liberal denomination and this is a deliberately political message. But, yes, it doesn't reflect well on organized religion and that's unfortunate.
As for the link being untenable, you're right. But that was the point. You've got so many red staters who want to believe the media is on this hellbent liberal agenda. I was trying to say that if that's true then why would they not run this spot? Well, just exactly for the reason porthos mentioned. They just don't do advocacy spots. Period.
I understand about the power of influence. So does Howard Stern. So does Abercrombie & Fitch. Personally? I think we've gotten ourselves onto a very slippery slope allowing any group to wield this kind of control over the media, be it left or right, heathen or God-fearing.
That aside, I was just trying to make the point that it seems amusing that all we hear about is how liberal the media is in America and yet here we have that same media rejecting a spot from a politically liberal Christian denomination like the UCC. And if you're right that the networks are trying desperately not to alienate trhe Christian right, then what does that say for their own commitment to the liberal agenda?
Are we surprised that Stanford would ally itself with the Vicary thing? My guess is most colleges and universities would do the same. I've always gotten the sense that academia loves to perpetuate this garbage because it inherently disdains what we do. It's commercialism. Academia hates that. Way way beneath them.
Sorry if my comments on the WIN Awards seem like a knee jerk reaction to you neo. I can assure you they're not. Obviously, all of media needs to continue working at how we portray women. Nobody disputes that. But if we're serious about this, let's do something else besides launch yet another awards show that has very little chance of effecting real change. A creative director I know tells me only 1 out of every 10 books he sees is from a woman and he wishes it were different. So do I. Maybe the WIN awards can do something about that. If someone can explain to me how, I'd love to hear it. Seriously.
I once had three months to do a TV campaign. Three months. That, of course, was then. This is now. Is it me or have deadlines gotten tighter than a Barbara Streisand facelift? But hey, now there's Headline Creator Pro to save our sorry butts! You know, this gives me an idea for a column. What if I get the program and actually try it out on a real client, see what happens. Maybe even enter it in a show somewhere. See how far it goes. What do you think?
Look, guys, the fact that this show is associated with the word "Women" still does a disservice to women. Doesn't matter that men can enter it. It's as absurd as having a "Men's" show. It just doesn't make sense. The world doesn't need a show to draw attention to women in advertising. I don't care if teddy bears can enter it. It still feels like a crutch to me and women don't need that kind of support. Just my opinion.
There are currently 0 users online.
Adland® is a commercial-laden heaven and hell for advertising addicts around the world.
This advertising publication was founded in 1996, built on beer and bravery, Adland® now boasts the largest super bowl commercials collection in the world.
Adland® survives on your donations alone. You can help us out by buying us a Ko-Fi. Adland® works best in Brave browser
What am I missing here? Okay, last time. We're told the media is liberal. But if they really and truly are, would the networks not subscribe to the same liberal agenda as the UCC and therefore air the spot? The networks are saying flat out that their reason for not doing so is because they have a policy wherein they do not, regardless of political philosophy, air advocacy commercials. Period. Which says to me that maybe they aren't as liberal as they're made out to be by the right. Is that any clearer?
- reply
Permalink