Fox Rejects Super Bowl Ad Featuring Bible Verse John 3:16

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Very sad. Whatever respect I had for Fox is now gone. Why in the world would you not allow this commercial? This to me was a very tasteful and well done commercial to possibly plant the seed of the Word of God. I just don't get it?

Fox Rejects Super Bowl Ad Featuring Bible Verse John 3:16
David Gibson
Religion Reporter


Link: Fox Rejects Super Bowl Ad Featuring Bible Verse John 3:16

Super Bowl ad controversies have become nearly as interesting as the commercials that get on the air, maybe more so, and that's surely the case with the latest spot rejected by Fox Sports: A 30-second ad aimed at getting viewers to check out the familiar gospel verse, John 3:16.

So far this year, Fox has nixed commercials over issues of bad taste and inappropriate content -- which is a pretty high bar, given the popularity of frat boy humor and double entendres in Super Bowl ads, or the single-entendre spots that focus the attention so intently on sexy women that viewers don't actually know what the sponsor does. (Quick, what does GoDaddy.com sell?)

Still, thanks to Fox's guidelines, viewers of this Sunday's Super Bowl matchup between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Green Bay Packers won't see an ad for an online dating service aimed at spouses looking to have affairs. Or the dueling bobbleheads spot from the conservative comedy site JesusHatesObama.com, in which an angry Jesus doll pushes a smiling Obama doll into a fish bowl. And Fox also put the kibosh on an entry into the annual Pepsi-and-Doritos ad competition that envisioned the snack chip and soft drink as the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Not!

So Larry Taunton, head of the Fixed Point Foundation, an Alabama-based organization that seeks to defend Christianity in the public square, figured he was on solid ground with his professionally produced commercial featuring a group of friends drinking beer, eating chips and watching football -- and asking each other what the phrase "John 3:16" written in a player's eye black means. That was it.

"We thought in this case, let's put forward something that is understated, that feels secular," Taunton said. Click play to watch video:

Link to original story for video: Fox Rejects Super Bowl Ad Featuring Bible Verse John 3:16

It was not to be. The Fox Broadcasting Company rejected the commercial, which would have brought in $3 million -- the going rate for a half-minute ad this year -- because under company policy, it "does not accept advertising from religious organizations for the purpose of advancing particular beliefs or practices."

"The Fixed Point Foundation was provided with our guidelines prior to their submission of storyboards for our review," the company said in a statement. "Upon examination, the advertising submitted clearly delivers a religious message and as a result has been rejected."

It's hard to argue with Fox's point about the spot's religious content. The verse is one in which Jesus tells his listeners, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

If Fox execs hadn't understood the ad's religious message, then Taunton and Fixed Point would have to go back to the editing suite in order to produce something that would do what any good ad should -- communicate clearly. (The commercial cost Fixed Point just $50,000 to make, about a tenth of what such ads normally cost, and two Fox affiliates, one in Alabama and the Fox station in Washington -- of all places -- said they'll air it during the Super Bowl. Taunton said that if Fox had OK'd the ad for national distribution, he felt sure he could have raised the money to cover the $3 million broadcast fee.)

Of course, as always happens when an ad is rejected, the media coverage generated by the controversy is probably more effective P.R. than anything money could buy.

Taunton was also quick to exonerate Fox Broadcasting from blame for its decision.

"They were very courteous and gracious," Taunton stressed. "Fox Sports isn't the enemy. We aren't out to demonize them. We think this is more of a cultural issue than it is a Fox Sports issue. Their solution was just to run from it because they think this is something that would offend their viewership. I think we have become so utterly sensitive and politically correct that the result is we end up doing absurd things like this."

A more likely explanation is that Fox, like all broadcasters, doesn't want too much controversy, or rather the wrong kind of controversy -- think of Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction" from the 2004 Super Bowl. CBS, which broadcast last year's Super Bowl, found itself on the defensive for reversing its policy against advocacy ads and allowing a pro-life spot by Heisman-winning quarterback and born-again Christian Tim Tebow -- though the commercial wound up being so subtle it's hard to know if anyone got the anti-abortion message.

Moreover, in the case of the Fixed Point Foundation's ad, it's hard to see how a commercial whose only religious reference is a brief shot of a player's eye black and "John 3:16" could offend an audience of sports fans.

Evangelical Christians who consider the verse a kind of motto for their faith have been holding up signs displaying the verse at televised sporting events for years, starting in the 1970s with the "Rainbow Man," a.k.a. Rollen Stewart, who wore a distinctive, multi-hued afro wig to draw attention to his placard.

Taunton acknowledged that John 3:16 is by now part of the scenery in sports, and especially football, which has a reputation as a culturally conservative sport. There are on-field prayer circles after games, players thanking Jesus after every score, and big-time, publicly professing Christians like Kurt Warner, Drew Brees and Sam Bradford are commonplace.

But Taunton believes the John 3:16-themed ad was needed for that very reason.

"Our thought was this: We're not trying to import Christianity into a sport or into part of the culture where it isn't," he said. "We're trying to draw people's attention to the fact that it's already there . . . John 3:16 has become so ubiquitous in the game that people sort of become numb to it."

"It's sort of like seeing the Nike swoosh," he added. "How many people know what that means?" (Good question. Answer: it apparently represents the wing of Nike, the Greek goddess of victory. But that's not the kind of religious reference to get Michael Jordan ads barred from the airwaves.)

Taunton also noted that commercials airing during NFL games for the new exorcism movie, "The Rite," are loaded with religious imagery, though the intent seems to scare rather than convert viewers.

Indeed, it is religion itself, with its potential to incite furious reactions and its association with political divisions, that really seems to give broadcasters a fright.

Taunton agrees, which is why he said the ad was apolitical by design and "not in your face" with the faith message.

The ad's rejection, he said, sends the message that "religion, and more specifically Christianity, is increasingly being treated like smoking -- you can only do it in designated areas. You may not bring it into the public space."

As a sports fan, Taunton said he'd be happy to have some serious competition for the best religion-themed Super Bowl ad. It would beat another overrated Doritos spot or even race car driver Danica Patrick baring skin for a GoDaddy commercial.

"If the Hindus want to put out an ad, I'm all for it," Taunton said. "Muslims? Bring it on. I'd love to see it. It'd make the Super Bowl a whole lot more interesting."
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I wonder how sad it would be if Fox refused to allow ads promoting Judaism, or Islam, or Satanism. <snort>
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Witness wrote:

Whatever respect I had for Fox is now gone.

Hmmm. I mean there is:

Fox Broadcasting

Fox News

Fox Radio

Fox Sports (who declined the ad)

Fox Sports Radio

Then you have all of the "local" Fox TV and Radio affiliates....

All under seperate management....

Thats a pretty big sweeping lost of respect....
 
Last edited:

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Witness wrote:



Hmmm. I mean there is:

Fox Broadcasting

Fox News

Fox Radio

Fox Sports (who declined the ad)

Fox Sports Radio

Then you have all of the "local" Fox TV and Radio affiliates....

All under seperate management....

Thats a pretty big sweeping lost of respect....

Those listed and WHOLE lot more, which are all owned and under one management of News Corp. I'm sure you knew that though, at least I hope you did.

So.....how do you feel about Fox Sports turning down the ad?
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Witness wrote:

So.....how do you feel about Fox Sports turning down the ad?

As Turtle said:

I wonder how sad it would be if Fox refused to allow ads promoting Judaism, or Islam, or Satanism. <snort>

And beyond that, the group knew the rules going in..why should they be any different and be allowed to not follow the rules?

And yes I know News Corp owns the Fox "division" but as i pointed out they each have seperate management groups and News Corp does NOT own all of the "Local Affiliates in TV and Radio....if they did, by your way of think the 2 Affiliates that are going to air the ad wouldn't be.....but I am sure you knew that....
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
I wonder how sad it would be if Fox refused to allow ads promoting Judaism, or Islam, or Satanism. <snort>

To be honest, I wouldn't care at all. I am comfortable with my belief in Christ and wouldn't take offense to it at all. To be honest I would welcome it. Then maybe people would educate themselves on what those religions are all about instead of the knee-jerk reactions we see all the time. I am a Christian, I welcome other points of views on other religions, cultures, etc, etc, that way I am an informed Christian and maybe, just maybe, I may plant the seed of Christianity in someone that has never heard or understood what Christianity is.

I can only speak for myself, but it wouldn't bother me in the least.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
And yes I know News Corp owns the Fox "division" but as i pointed out they each have seperate management groups and News Corp does NOT own all of the "Local Affiliates in TV and Radio....if they did, by your way of think the 2 Affiliates that are going to air the ad wouldn't be.....but I am sure you knew that...

And the local affiliates could either choose to air the commercial or not. With Fox denying the commercial there is no choice in the matter.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Witness wrote:

And the local affiliates could either choose to air the commercial or not. With Fox denying the commercial there is no choice in the matter.

Huh!?!?

From the article posted:

and two Fox affiliates, one in Alabama and the Fox station in Washington -- of all places -- said they'll air it during the Super Bowl.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Witness wrote:



Huh!?!?

From the article posted:

You are correct, I stand corrected. Hopefully more affiliates will follow their leads.

More importantly, as the article stated and Mr. Taunton said,
"if Fox had OK'd the ad for national distribution, he felt sure he could have raised the money to cover the $3 million broadcast fee."

Also like the article stated (and our own scottm4211 did as well) John 3:16 is and has been part of the sports landscape. From the article:

"Our thought was this: We're not trying to import Christianity into a sport or into part of the culture where it isn't," he said. "We're trying to draw people's attention to the fact that it's already there . . . John 3:16 has become so ubiquitous in the game that people sort of become numb to it."

"It's sort of like seeing the Nike swoosh," he added. "How many people know what that means?" (Good question. Answer: it apparently represents the wing of Nike, the Greek goddess of victory. But that's not the kind of religious reference to get Michael Jordan ads barred from the airwaves.)

Taunton agrees, which is why he said the ad was apolitical by design and "not in your face" with the faith message.

The ad's rejection, he said, sends the message that "religion, and more specifically Christianity, is increasingly being treated like smoking -- you can only do it in designated areas. You may not bring it into the public space."

NewsCorp doesn't seem to have a problem with controversy, I mean take a look at FoxNews. I guess if it promotes Christianity, then they have to draw a line.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
They have guidelines, they followed them.

That is correct, but look at last years Super Bowl commercial with Tim Tebow and his mother's anti-abortion commercial. CBS reversed its policy on advocacy groups advertising on their network and allowed the ad from Focus on the Family.

CBS' decision to reverse its previous policy barring advocacy ads to air the ad against abortion had sent Pam Tebow's story ricocheting around the Internet.......

Link: Tim Tebow's Brilliant Fake Leads to Pro-Life Score

To deny that the pro-life stance is not political and uncontroversial is being naive.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
To be honest, I wouldn't care at all. I am comfortable with my belief in Christ and wouldn't take offense to it at all. To be honest I would welcome it. Then maybe people would educate themselves on what those religions are all about instead of the knee-jerk reactions we see all the time. I am a Christian, I welcome other points of views on other religions, cultures, etc, etc, that way I am an informed Christian and maybe, just maybe, I may plant the seed of Christianity in someone that has never heard or understood what Christianity is.

I can only speak for myself, but it wouldn't bother me in the least.
While I appreciate your views and your answer, you nonetheless (in a natural-born dispatcher fashion) answered a completely different question than the one I asked. The question wasn't whether or not you'd object to the ads for those other religions being aired, but whether you'd be sad, or rather what the level of sadness would be, if Fox refused to run them.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
While I appreciate your views and your answer, you nonetheless (in a natural-born dispatcher fashion)

Natural-born dispatcher? hmmmm.... I'm not a dispatcher, and what exactly does that mean? Is that a bad thing, are dispatchers different than anyone else? Not exactly sure what that has to do with the article and thread at hand.

The question wasn't whether or not you'd object to the ads for those other religions being aired, but whether you'd be sad, or rather what the level of sadness would be, if Fox refused to run them.

Well, I actually answered by saying I wouldn't care, I wouldn't take offense, it would be welcomed, and I wouldn't be bothered by it at all. Here, I'll add that I wouldn't be sad at all along with the other adjectives I used.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Natural-born dispatcher? hmmmm.... I'm not a dispatcher, and what exactly does that mean?
It means that dispatchers routinely answer a question that wasn't asked. You ask them a simple question, and instead of giving you a simple answer, they instead answer some other question entirely, often a question that they think you were really asking. Like in this case, where the question you answered was, "How would you feel if those other religions ran ads, toooo?" even though that's not even remotely close to the question I asked. You answered it quite well, though. It just wasn't the question I asked.

Is that a bad thing, are dispatchers different than anyone else?
Well, if you are interested in effective communication, yeah, I'd say it's a bad thing. And yes, dispatchers are very different from everyone else. It takes a special kind of person to be a dispatcher.

Not exactly sure what that has to do with the article and thread at hand.
It's got nothing whatsoever to do with the article or the thread, it was an off-handed comment, included within parentheses to indicate its off-handedness and lack of importance to the topic at hand, to make a satirical comment about dispatchers.


Well, I actually answered by saying I wouldn't care, I wouldn't take offense, it would be welcomed, and I wouldn't be bothered by it at all. Here, I'll add that I wouldn't be sad at all along with the other adjectives I used.
OK, so you wouldn't care if Fox refused ads promoting those other religions, and you wouldn't take offense if they refused those ads, and it would be welcomed if they refused those ads, and you wouldn't be bothered by it at all if they refused to carry those ads, and, finally, that you wouldn't be sad if they refused to run those ads. Thank you, that answers my question.

I have another question about how you wouldn't care and also it would be welcomed, both of those things at the same time, but I'll leave that for another time.

So, knowing that, I can now comment that I find it interesting that you find it sad that Fox refused an ad promoting Christianity, but you would be ambivalent and not sad at all if they refused ads promoting those other religions. Interesting indeed.
 

WestSide

Seasoned Expediter
He that sendeth a message by the hand of a fool cutteth off the feet, and drinketh damage.

Proverbs 26:6 (King James Version)
 
Top