SUPRMAN said:

Canadians have their own football league.

Cinnie said:

.....and it's borderline racist. THIS^ ad makes it seem that it only cares about gay white men that are looking for boyfriends. And it also confirms the homophobia of the black communities within the USA.

Fauxie said:

Wait and see if they run ads for the new eHarmony site for gay couples. eHarmony recently settled a discrimination suit, alleging (truthfully) that they don't allow gay people on their site. eHarmony said they'd create a new site for gay couples. Let's see if CBS runs the ads they'll have for that site. If they do, then they're hypocrites, and cherry picking political correctness, or discrimination.

Cinnie said:

Yeah, but that season ends at the beginning of December.
If they are Canadian and a football fan, I'll watch theirs and they can watch ours.

SUPRMAN said:

I am a big sports fan. I am a huge football fan. However, it is highly unlikely that I will watch the Super Bowl this year. I absolutely despise the Colts, and I am indifferent towards the Saints. I can't stand to watch the Colts win another one, so I just wont watch. The only way I will watch is if my friend wants to come over and watch the game.

I have only missed 2 of the last 22 Super Bowls. This will make 3. I didnt watch the last time Indy was in it, but I did watch the halftime show, for obvious reasons.

Bud Lights superbowl submission ...at least we see some skin in this.

SUPRMAN said:

Then you better add that to your eHarmony profile

ernestsewell said:

I have to confess, I know absolutely nothing about all this as far as the state of play in the U.S. but all of this is making me feel slightly sick. How much time do you spend just getting on with your life and how much time feeling outraged and mad as hell? I'm not taking the piss, it just seems in 2010 that this shit is ridiculous.

lazycrockett said:

It's murkier than that, though. CBS said they had serious doubts that the site could afford the Super Bowl ad rates and they commented that the ad didn't meet the creative and production standards necessary. Just looking at the ad proves the latter point. And while this would only be anecdotal evidence, still: Had any of the gay men on here ever heard of this site before this ad controversy? I think it's a small site that came up with an ingenious way to generate some free publicity but was never really able to afford the spot in the first place.

Efan said:

Sure sounds like a safe, and non-discriminatory, statement on the part of CBS. How white of them.

Did anyone think some blanket with sleeves was going to be profitable enough to put during a 10 p.m. prime time show and charge them those rates?
[Edited 1/29/10 13:09pm]

ernestsewell said:

Um, what?

Efan said:

CBS's history is also imporatnat to this. in the past, they rejected ads from moveon.org and PETA, and these GREAT united church of christ ads:





they claimed they don't run advocacy group ads. then accepted the focus on the family anti-abortion ad in question. their response to this was essentially 'we changed our rules, now we allow advocacy group ads'

so the dating site ad made them put their money where their mouth is, and not surprisingly, they sissied out citing the dating sites percieved lack of funds and bad production levels.

i love it because it proves what a lie the "liberal media" myth is.

cborgman said:

I don't disagree with all that, but really, could mancrunch.com have paid for the ad? I doubt they could. I think they saw an opportunity for free publicity, which is cool, but it also gave CBS two legitimate reasons to reject them.

Efan said:

perhaps, perhaps not.

it's kind of silly that cbs felt the need to declare that as one of the reasons beforehand.

the smart thing to do would have been to accept the ad, send the contract. if payment isn't recieved with the contract, don't run it. then it seems like they aren't dumbasses.

...or to not hae accepted the focus on the family ad as accorded by their earlier denial of the other advocacy group ads. but because they changed their rules for a viciously homophobic group, now we get to see how biased they are.

they are also the network who ran a censored image of lambert kissing his keyboardist, then moments later showed the britney madonna kiss uncensored on their morning news show.
[Edited 1/29/10 14:26pm]

I went to a gay Super Bowl party once and said never again. It almost turned into a fight. The gay men were bored waiting for the halftime show so naturally they were talking to each other to entertain themselves. Meanwhile, the lesbians were hollering and screaming "shut the fuck up, we're trying to hear the game".

Well, if they played in the nude like the old Greek games, I'd be a huge football fan. Otherwise, I would find a Shitney Houston concert more entertaining....at least I could laugh and crack jokes on her during the show.

We could still date though. Let's go out tomorrow night. I know a nice little place that serves some delicious pig ear sandwiches.
.
.
.
[Edited 1/29/10 20:34pm]

vainandy said:

If nothing else, the least you could do is back the New Orleans Saints to win the SuperBowl. Because if OR when they win, those people in the Gulf Coast are going to party like it's THE last party on earth.

Just saying.

http://money.cnn.com/2010.../index.htm



By Aaron Smith, CNNMoney.com staff writer

January 29, 2010: 4:43 PM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Super Bowl network CBS rejected an ad Friday from ManCrunch.com, a gay dating Web site.

"After reviewing the ad, which is entirely commercial in nature, our standards and practices department decided not to accept this particular spot," said CBS spokeswoman Shannon Jacobs. "We are always open to working with a client on alternative submissions."

CBS (CBS, Fortune 500) said it turned down the ad partly for financial reasons, but ManCrunch believes that there's more to it than that.

"It's straight-up discrimination," said Elissa Buchter, spokeswoman for the Toronto-based dating site.

Jacobs of CBS declined to comment on the charge of discrimination.

Buchter provided a copy of the CBS rejection letter to CNNMoney, which states that the ad "is not within the Network's broadcast standards for Super Bowl Sunday."

The letter also states that the CBS sales department "has had difficulty verifying [ManCrunch's] credit status."

Buchter said that basing the rejection on credit status doesn't make sense because "we offered to pay cash." But Jacobs said CBS has no record of any such offer.

CBS is charging up to $3 million for 30-second spots. Buchter said ManCrunch would have been charged $2.5 million for its ad and would have had no trouble paying it, since the newly formed company recently raised $40 million from investors.

Shortly before ManCrunch announced the rejection, Jacobs of CBS said her company was reviewing the ad and it was "just one of many."

Jacobs also said the spots were "virtually sold out. We have one, maybe two spots left."

ManCrunch's ad, which can be viewed on its Web site, shows two men watching the Super Bowl. Their hands brush each other in the potato chip bowl, which inspires a passionate, male-on-male make-out session.

ManCrunch is not alone. Godaddy, an online retailer of Web site domain names, is running an ad in the Super Bowl this year but it had another ad rejected by CBS in the process. The rejected ad features a man named Lola.

This year's Super Bowl, between the Indianapolis Colts and the New Orleans Saints, will be played Feb. 7 at Sun Life Stadium near Miami. The facility in Miami Gardens, Fla., formerly called Dolphin Stadium, was recently renamed.

I was glad to hear they beat the Vikings and hope they win the Super Bowl. A lot of people from New Orleans moved to Jackson and still live here after Hurricane Katrina. Saints merchandise is flying off the shelves here in Mississippi and I am happy for the native New Orleanians.