GLAAD: CBS' Super Bowl ad rejection seems like a 'homophobic double standard'

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has released a statement asking CBS to publicly explain its advertising standards after rejecting a proposed Super Bowl commercial from gay dating website Mancrunch.com. The statement points out that the rejection follows the network having recently approved a controversial Super Bowl spot from the Christian organization Focus on Family. “This network should come clean to the public about what’s going on because this seems to be a homophobic double standard,” said GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios.

CBS is not offering further comment in response to GLAAD’s statement. Yesterday, the network explained its decision on the Mancrunch ad with the following statement: “After reviewing the ad — which is entirely commercial in nature — our Standards and Practices department decided not to accept this particular spot. As always, we are open to working with the client on alternative submissions.”

In its rejection letter to Mancrunch, CBS also cited trouble with verifying the company’s credit status — a 30-second spot costs an estimated $2.6 million. A rep for Mancrunch claims the company has the money and even offered to pay cash upfront for the commercial. CBS tells EW the network has no record of such an offer.

More Super Bowl commercials:
CBS rejects gay dating website’s Super Bowl commercial
CBS stands behind controversial Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad; Women’s groups continue to protest

Comments (355 total) Add your comment
Page: 1 2 3 10
  • gag

    Two weeks ago, no one (not even the gays) had heard of ManCrunch. Today, just about everyone has heard of it. Mission accomplished.

    • Michael

      Totally agree. The people at Man Crunch knew that it would be rejected and cause such “controversy.” Gays deservingly benefit from idiotic homophobia yet again!!!

    • Kim

      That’s what I was thinking. I don’t think GLAAD should have gotten involved. I don’t think it had anything to do with being homophobic. It sounds like the ad was done badly and this is the superbowl after all. Its not so much about the content of the ads, but the entertainment value. Is there anywhere we can go to see it?

      • Kim

        Missed the part about the money too. This sounds like a set up controversy because of Tim Tebow’s ad.

      • ideas

        I agree!!! Good call!!

    • info

      I agree! I think this was a stunt for sure!

      • Anne

        Regardless of whether it’s a stunt (and I agree that ManCrunch has received a lot of publicity), there is still a very serious issue of discrimination at play here.

      • AcaseofGeo

        It HAS to be a stunt. I viewed the ad on TMZ, or what they say is the add. It is so horribly acted, so totally unclear what they’re even selling, and very low-quality in production values. I’d say the poor production alone didn’t meet Superbowl standards. The pitch of guys reaching for chips leading to a kiss doesn’t really address the dating site.

      • seattlejohn

        i agree with acaseofgeo…i’m a gay guy and that ad was embarassingly bad; i’m glad it got pulled because it sets gay guys up to be laughed at or ripped apart for being horndawgs instead of profiling a more discreet scenario that takes itself seriously…plus why wouuld you spend 2.5 million in airtime and not make a really incredible, high-production product to proudly be displayed in front of a huge gay-suspicious audience? totally irresponsible

      • Mouthy

        So obvious that this is NOT REAL! They aren’t even actually kissing!

    • Anonymous

      If it is a stunt, it wouldn’t be the first time someone used a legitimate issue as cover to push their own agenda.

      • James S.

        You’re a moron. Go back the south.

      • Emma

        Dear James, what an insightful comment. Thanks for contributing.

      • Spider Reid

        What was probably more offensive to the censors, was the rejection of potato chips, and the channeling of an impulse towards making a connection with a buddy (the prolonged gaze), followed by a makeout session.

      • Dialectic Necessity

        Typically potato/carbs, oj, and chicks are friendly symbols to assure populist commercialism, but in this case showcasing the chips in as a lesser choice must have triggered some redflags at chez coward’s.

      • Dorothy Nofuss

        Isn’t it time the Quarterback archetype (the manly rarara man gladiator who mistake the cheering fans for success) was at least discussed in paid commercial airtime?

      • Lesbos Mulah

        Typically when CBS refuses good money, it means they are afraid of the puppeted fans getting too rowdy and chanting down the CBS men as lesser, and flicking off the CBS women as cardboard.

      • Judith Blair

        The coalition could revise the ad as follows:eat the potatos, and make them sons boys that will be boys, and turn the third wheel into an eccentric gay bobo who wears his sexuality as his sole identifier.

      • Jason Warnin

        The coalition could fare better. They could portray homophobia by them good ole boys, that is then disapproved of by a next generation of boys who are archetypes of actual success. BTW, what is the consequence for the individuals who refuse to showcase content that actually enhances society? It’d be as per formulaic sensationalism of the fairytale invective if they voluntarily resigned. But compromise on just disappear and make it happen.

      • Sandra Pancrea

        O touchy touchy clannish hand-me-downs. Some prude midlifer with the mental development of an imbecile 12 year old was offended at a flip on homoerotic sports celebration. Fine, but you shouldn’t work at a major news corporation. Says who.

      • Lesbos

        O the clannish hand me downs.

      • Sandra

        Prudish decision makers. Don’t understand their own business. It’s always interesting when people in business opt to lose money.

      • Lesbos

        What is so offensive about same-sex affection anyhow? Is the aversion a illogical obsoletism yet? How many rovers have to be moved over? Just move.

      • BJ PRo

        Is Catie Couric at CBS?

      • Hanme Down

        Though it was a comment on van jones-types whose standard for failure (as in curricular F) is as death (that is to be alive is to not have failed) who tolerate bigotry as well-behaved chicken and watermelon eaters, and waste their money time and energy on fighting civil rights as applied to same-sex state contracted marriage.

      • Anonymous

        Read what I said. I said “Legitimate issue.” Equality, be it sexual, gender, or ethnic is a legitimate issue. One that I’m in favor of. But there have been plenty of legitimate issues that have been used to mask ulterior motives. And not that it matters, but I’m not actually from the South. Way to sterotype.

    • Astor

      “The gays?” Seriously?

      • gag

        Yup, the gays. They live down the street. Lovely neighbors. You should see what they’ve done with their front lawn.

    • Jolie

      BOYCOTT CBS!!!

  • Natalie

    There is a big difference between a commercial regarding Christianity and homosexuality. Our country was built and formed on the values of Christianity. Even other religions have basis in Christianity. A large percentage of our country identify themselves as Christian. On the flip side, a very small percentage identify themselves as homosexual. I feel like we are being forced to accept homosexuality as a main stream lifestyle whether we like it or not. I personally do not want to see a commercial for gay dating website. And last time I checked this is still a free country so if CBS doesn’t want to air the commercial they have the right to make that choice and not have to explain it to anyone.

    • Kara

      Natalie- That’s a pretty seriously ignorant comment. This country was formed under the basis of a clear separation of church and state. If anything, the fact that the US claims to be a democracy, with “equal” opportunity for all (which, of course, is a crock- since people like you exist to reinforce heteronormative standards), it would make commercials for gay dating services much more appropriate than christian-based ones.

    • Atom

      America was founded to escape the religious persecution of the British common wealth. Not one of the founding fathers was a Christian, most to all would be classified as deist, or non denominational by today’s standards. This is clearly spoken about in every history book, perhaps you should read one.

    • Dora

      Natalie = typical right wing bigot

  • Nick

    If it were for a lesbian dating site and it were two women in the commercial, this would so not be an issue.

    • sue

      That reminds me of the Miller Lite “Catfight” commercial, in which two attractive women wrestle each other – it suggested lesbianism. Yeah, it was popular.

    • Q

      Same things comes up with the rejected GoDaddy commercial (“Lola”). Scantily clad women? No problem! Effeminate male character? Egads man, there might be children watching!

      • Ahlan Vasahlan

        The point is to reduce women to sexual gratifyers of men, and prime women into self-hate and acceptance of a status quo of legaland practical inferiority. And sanctioning, or normalizing male aggression at home, so men can vent it off on the wifi, and everyone can wait for the dominant tastemaker to tell them how to spend their money, what to think and say, how to vote, and how to spend their time.

      • Kiare

        I’m going to agree with GLAAD. Especially with CBS rejecting GoDaddy’s Lola ad. Watch it at GoDaddy- it’s an effeminate man who designs lingerie. None of the usual stuff from GoDaddy’s ads. By comparison to last year’s broadcast shower ad… it’s tame. Even the ManCrunch ad is pretty tame- you don’t see any actual kissing.

        So long as there’s a hetero bend to it, or a lipstick lesbian fantasy, it’s okay. Make it men, even just an effeminate one… then it’s not.

    • Yes

      Exactly. There is such a double standard at play here. It’s because these things are frankly run by men who are uncomfortable and essentially homophobic. We all know that it’s mainly women watching the commercials anyway.

      • orville

        Well, they’re essentially homophobic when it comes to two men, not two women. For some reason, there’s a huge male obsession with lesbians. But there’s even a double standard with that–they’d be interested in two lesbians who look like Portia DeRossi, but not two who look like Ellen Degeneres or Rosie O’Donnell.

        And good call on it being mostly women who watch the commercials. I know that’s a big part of why I watch. So why not have half-naked men on the level of the half-naked women in the Go-Daddy commericals for us?

    • Howard

      With CBS it would be. They had a big old problem with that Guiding Light storyline didnt they.

      • AcaseofGeo

        Yet CBS gained huge amounts of publicity for “As the World Turns” and its story of two hot young teen boys kissing in an ongoing story. But alas, ATWT has been cancelled….by CBS.

    • tvgirl48

      COMPLETELY agree! Men have no problem with lesbians because two chicks kissing is hot man. And if those Go Daddy commercials can air, how can anything else not?

      • Ahlan Vasahlan

        The point of TV is just that. Rearing imbeciles, otherwise PBS, CSPAN and the history channel would rule, and the rest, would automatically self-defeat with a change channel signal (subliminally activated).

        But keeping the populace stunted in development is easier if you keep them watching whatever you’ve taught them to get turned on by.

    • twpeck

      Good point – but only because the audience for watching two women kiss (men and women who are sexually confused) is much larger than watching two men kiss (just men who are sexually confused).

  • Mr B

    No explanation is needed.Its sick and wrong.

    • Mr X

      So you must be running CBS then? It’s people like you that show everything that is wrong with this country! If you don’t like gay people, that’s fine…they probably don’t like you either. But for YOU to decide what is right and wrong and acceptable and sick? I’m not claiming to be all-knowing and always right but I sure as hell know that you are not right either. Just let everyone live their own lives and this world will be a much better place.

      • ddpalmer

        A TV station or network has every right to decide what they feel is right, wrong, acceptable and sick; and make their decisions about selling ad space based on those decisions. If you don’t like their decisions then don’t watch or patronize them. If enough people feel like you do they will lose money and either change their decision or go out of business. It is know as capitolism.

      • Mr T

        Did you just respond to your own troll? Or was someone dumb enough to take it seriously? I’m confused!

      • Cheryl

        So why don’t you let Mr. B live his own life and have his own opinions? Then, by your own reasoning, this world would be a better place. Not only are you a hypocrite, but your thinking is shallow. Just let pedophiles live their own lives. Oh then the world would be a better place. Just let rapists live their own lives. Just let radical jihadists live their own lives. Truth is not relative. You can’t make up your own.

      • Kevin

        Cheryl there’s a difference between pedophiles/rapists/jihadists(Do you even know what that word means? and homosexuals. A.) homosexuals aren’t breaking the law b.) homosexuals aren’t hurting anyone. If that’s the case, then yes, they should be allowed to live their own lives. That’s not a hypocritical stance, unless you live in crazy land/haterville/ fundiestan.

        Meh, I still can’t believe there are people who defend homophobia. It’s 2010 people. A gay dating website ad is not going to give people teh ghey.

      • Jeff

        Cheryl, homosexuals enter into the act freely. The victims of pedophiles, jihadists and rapists do not. Calling someone a hypocrite and shallow is fine if your position is sound, but yours is not.

      • Frank

        Nice troll Cheryl – but not good enough. There’s a big difference between gay people and the reprehensible groups you mentioned. Specifically, gay people in general are looking to have happy, healthy relationships, but pedophiles, rapists, and radical jihadists are looking to torment and abuse others in order to fuel their own sense of power. Come to think of it, anti-gay protesters like you fall firmly into that latter category. How does it feel to know that you’re no different than a child predator?

      • Brad

        I agree. If CBS had approved of a Pro-choice ad, the Pro-lifers would be furious. They would demand equal consideration or a complete removal of the ad. I can’t help but think that if Tim Tebow, the golden boy, wasn’t in that ad, CBS would have dumped it.

      • cbl99201

        Mr X, “I’m not claiming to be all-knowing and always right”.

        That’s good, because you are dead wrong.

      • Ryq

        It’s ‘capitalism’. For people who espouse it so much, you’d think more people would know how to spell it.

      • hc

        @ddpalmer: Addressing your specific comment (not this larger issue), you are dead wrong. CBS is a broadcast network that airs, in part, through FCC licensed airwaves. That’s why even though the network might be down with swear words and nudity, it isn’t allowed to air either. If they’re using public airwaves then the public, b/c of separation of church and state, has a right to expect impartiality. The Super Bowl is one of the most watched programs of the year, which is why it is rotated among the networks, so to just tell people not to watch is…unrealistic.
        and @Cheryl: Reality may not be relative, but truth can be. If you can’t recognize that then you are a walking and talking (and typing) example of the ‘shallow’ thinking you posted about. Get off your ethnocentric soapbox.

    • Diva

      You know what’s sicl and wrong? people like you living.

    • yambo

      Obviously some folks think the Super Bowl is a great venue for some man on man action. We call these folks pervs.

      • Jim

        I call them football fans.

      • nat

        I hope you’re joking.

      • James S.

        And “joeker,” you got it wrong on two counts: your own user name and “bastards.” Seriously, go back to your trailer park and beat your kids; it’s what you’re good at, isn’t it? Leave the rest of us civilized folks in peace.

      • Racine

        Maybe the network rejected them because their name sounds so nasty.

      • @joeker

        “gay people should should crawl back in the hole from where they came… cannot fathom as to why people care about these nasty disease ridden basterds”
        -
        -
        Back from where they came? You mean their mothers’ uteruses?

      • peggym

        Man-on-man action is called UFC

    • Danielle

      Huh??? I’m really surprised by some of the backwoods bigoted comments on this board. Really? Those of you who think gays are “sick” and “perverted” realize that EW.com is one of the most gay-friendly mainstream sites on the Web, right? So..why are you even reading this site?

    • Tom

      Maybe you are in the closet Mr. B. People only hate what they can’t acknowledge what is true about themselves!!!

      • Sunstorm

        Since when?

      • @Tom

        Really?????? I’m sure you hate pedophilia Tom, (at least I HOPE you do),so because you hate it does that mean you hate it because you can’t acknowledge that its true that YOU are a pedophile???? Your line of reasoning is ridiculous!!!!! Nice try though.

      • @Tom@Tom

        Actually, @Tom, YOUR line of reasoning is ridiculous, because it suggests that being gay is the same as pedophilia, which it CLEARLY is not.

        Nice try, though. Next time, could you try some logic from this dimension? Thanks!!!

        FAIL!!! PWND!!

    • Tom

      kiss my A Mr. B!

      • Tom

        being gay is not even the same as being a pedophile. to hate some thing that is not evil, such as being gay, which is not evil, is hating something you don’t like about yourself. Pedophilia is evil and is hated because it is evil. Being gay isn’t evil dumbass

    • @MrB

      “Sick and Wrong.” Dude, you probably have no problem watching shows like “Criminal Minds,” or the whole “Saw” franchise. Frankly, I’d rather see two guys making out than brains smeared on a wall or women being tortured. Lord, people in this country have their priorities so effed up.

  • Jono

    As an openly gay individual, I even think this is silly. I support GLAAD and the awareness of what they’re promoting and celebrating. But I seriously can’t go a week without reading somewhere that GLAAD has been offended by something (that, in the long run, is not that important). Sure, the commercial was rejected, but I’m almost 100% certain that this ManCrunch ad wasn’t the ONLY commercial rejected by the network. And immediately jumping the gun and labeling this situation as a “homophobic double standard” is a tad immature, in my opinion. If I had a nickel for every time I was put in a situation where I wanted someone to “come clean” because I felt like I had been wronged because of my sexuality, I would own an island in the Caribbean! I know GLAAD means well, but this is so unnecessary.

  • sbwm

    Publicity. CBS has no record of this. Mancrunch got what it wanted. It is not a double standard – it’s a different ad and subject. Gay Dating vs Pro Life – not a double standard. Just publicity and it worked.GLAAD should stay out of this one because it hurts their purpose, I think.

    • Michael

      GLAAD often hurts their own purpose. They are continuously late to the game.

      It is a double standard. They don’t have to be complete opposites for it to be such.

  • bamabunny

    It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative, and EVERYTHING to do with the hard-on CBS Sports has for Tim Tebow. If Tim Tebow was in the ManCrunch ad, THEN they’d air it.

    • Jim

      If Tim Tebow were in the mancrunch ad, Id sign up immediately! If GLAD overdoes it sometimes its fine. Its better than sitting back and letting the haters bash us.

      • Michael

        Um…GLAAD typically UNDERdoes it.

      • yambo

        Yeah, it’s really bashing. That’s not hysterical hyperbole at all!

    • Laz Nunez

      Is that you Tebow? I thought you’d never ask…

    • Deeter131

      Tebow is not in the AD, but he IS a member…..LOL

  • Pookie

    Couldn’t they have at least gotten GAY actors. It is SO not sexy.

  • Jon

    The money issue is irrelevant. So is the idea that the web site did this for publicity. The only important fact is that CBS’ Standards and Practices didn’t approve this — thought it was unfit to air — for one simple reason: because two men shared a kiss. They are saying, in effect, that two men kissing is not suitable for the general public to see. That there’s something wrong and perverse about it. And that’s blatant homophobia. If you re-cast the commercial with a straight couple, there would be no issue. How is this not clear-cut discrimination? And when is America just going to grow up and accept that people of the same sex are attracted to each other? It’s 2010, for the love of God. Just DEAL with it already.

  • Kent

    So, the way I see it, Focus On The Family has given Mancrunch.com 2.6 million dollars and a week’s worth of free press. Whoever’s running marketing strategy at Mancrunch is the Bill Belichick of marketing gurus.

    • Walter Kovacs

      While they are getting free press, the ammount of people finding out about them would still be dwarfed by the number that would see the ad during the Superbowl and/or hear about it after.

  • Ray

    Once again the good, tolerent Christians rule the day. So much for understanding and allowing all people’s voices to be heard.

    • Donald Moeser

      I had no idea that CBS was a Christian station?

      • yambo

        Remember when man on man action used to be part of every sporting event?

      • Ray

        It’s not.

      • Are you for Real?

        Hillarious, I love your comment yambo!

    • cbl99201

      The idea that all people should be understood and heard is moronic. Should we understand and hear someone who yells “fire” in a crowded theater, causing people to trampled to death? Get a brain, dude.

      • Seymour

        cc199201 – nice try, but all you’ve done is demonstrate that you have no understanding of how the first amendment works.
        The first amendment protects the right for all people to speak, and to speak about popular and unpopular ideas. Free speech has protected anti-choice demonstrations, pro-choice demonstrations, anti-gay demonstrations, pro-gay demonstrations, and even Nazi party demonstrations. At the base of the first amendment is that you don’t get to decide for others what is acceptable speech.

        Now there is a notable exception to this, which is the ‘fire in a crowded theater’ exception that you incorrectly tried to use. This standard is used to justify curtailing the right to free speech when speech is outweighed by the physical dangers brought by the speech. It is a two-pronged test and is totally inapplicable in this situation. The first prong is based upon the notions that yelling fire has no political or social message and is therefore not subject to the same protections as other speech. The second prong weighs the potential physical harm to those who hear it. In the case of yelling fire in a theater, the act was intended to and would have endangered human lives.

        This standard doesn’t apply in this situation in the manner that you suggest. No human lives are at stake if this ad is aired – no one is going to be in such a rush to leave the bar during the add that they trample one another.

        CBS can argue that the ad is not social/political speech and is commercial speech, and therefore not subject to the same protections. But it can’t use the fire analogy.

    • Tracy

      “Gays” do have their own station it is called LOGO and it is on cable.

    • mimi

      Josh, you’re showing your education level. And your incredible hostility. Pathetic. And I’m sure if the two people in the commercial were women you’d have no problem at all with CBS running it during the sacred Superbowl. Time to grow up.

    • Seymour

      I think you meant “our face” and not “are face”! Ignorant comments, when combined with a failure to master basic English, makes you look foolish.

      The beautiful thing about this country is that if you don’t like something, you don’t have to watch it – you can turn the channel, look away, etc. But you don’t get to impose what you want to watch on everyone else.

    • Henri Wong

      People need to see were TARP money went, how it was distributed up the chain of third parties. People also need agricultural subsidies to be cut, so that obesity is reduced, so that potatos aren’t offensive to the fakers.

    • @josh

      LMAO!! You can’t even spell “Christian!”

    • V

      Fair…let’s keep it out of your face. Let’s also keep straight romance out of everyone’s faces. NO sexy outfits, no more hot people on TV. Only asexual television and media from now on. After all, fair is fair…I’m sure gay people don’t want to see ads with a guy and girl kissing, so let’s keep it out of their faces too.

  • mh

    Boo hoo poor gay crybabies. The world does not revolve around you. CBS is a privately owned company and has the right to do whatever they want. Find someplace else to air your smut.

    • MrsK

      Exactly. Boo hoo. Not everyone believes that gays are all that.

    • Ray

      Spoken by the narrow-minded moron that you are. No doubt you’ll be the first choice when Jesus returns.

      • metalman

        Ray: The idea that the world does not revolve around a person is not narrow minded. A person is not arrow minded because they disagree with you; they simply disagree with you. At least that’s how it works here on planet earth. You can can now call me a bigot or a homophobe, since I know that you’re not going to have anything valid to say.

    • John

      CBS may be private but the airwaves are public and censorship does not belong in America.

    • Commodore_Perry

      CBS may be privately owned, but they still use public airwaves, which subjects them to regulation by the FCC…
      CBS may not be gay, but their butt is gonna hurt in the morning nonetheless.

      • RyRyNYC

        LMAO… hilariously well put.

      • Want Mulla?

        CBS will suffer for not airing this commercial. Financially, commercially, metaphysically. Maybe they can all get fired with the new world order and the wrecks may endup blogging at Huffington’s united church, where everything is tolerated/

    • Deeter131

      and we have the right to boycott every business that airs an ad…effectively causing millions of dollars in less money to flow to YOUR tables.
      and as to smut…if it were two women in the ad, you would be beating off right now.well you probably are anyways…i bet you are a real good tebow fan….lol
      you like his pretty eye make-up.

      • Terry

        Y’know, I never was under the impression that CBS caters to gays anyway. But if I were a business and had a choice between offending gays or people who don’t like gays, I would go with whichever was the biggest number. Wonder which is the higher number.

    • doug

      you are right !!! back in the closet with the whole bunch. Stay the hell out of our lives. We don’t want you, need you, or will allow you to dirty up airways with your garbage

      • Rainbow Bright

        You’re talking about ignorant, narrow-minded bigots, right?
        I must agree, then. Our world would be much better without homophobes in it.

      • James S.

        Why is it that every homophobic person lacks basic grammar skills? Doug, please copy-edit yourself before making inflammatory statements; otherwise you come across as nothing more than a backwoods idiot.

    • lulu

      since when is two people kissing “smut”?

  • Bill Sullivan

    The Bigots in the “Standards & Practices Dept. of CBS fail to understand that many of us will be offended by the ad sponsored by Focus on Family. As for me, when that ad comes on, I will focus on the “off” button to my tv !

    • MrsK

      Do that. That’s the way to make your voice heard. Turn the channel.

    • ReasonRules

      Don’t you people get it. In 2010 only gay people get to decide what is discriminatory or offensive. Its really very simple; Christians = bad, Gayness = Good.

  • Donald Moeser

    What has the Tebow ad have to do with homosexuals and a “double standand?”

    Isn’t this a bit of a stretch?

  • suzi

    I guess we no longer have the right to choose what we want vs what we don’t want in this country.

    • James S.

      No, Suzi, you don’t have the right to choose what I want for myself. Quit being so selfish and use your brain.

    • JayNYC

      Of course you don’t suzi you imbecile. We’d still have slaves if that were the case.

Page: 1 2 3 10
Add your comment
The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject - or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.

When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.

Latest Videos

Advertisement

TV Recaps

Powered by WordPress.com VIP