Tivo Advertising SI Swimsuit Show - Not Happy

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by Atomike, Feb 21, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...

    Advertisements

    If you are offended, then don't watch the Superbowl. If you "just have to" watch the Superbowl despite it's pandering to attitudes of which you disapprove, then clearly your desire to watch sports is of greater importance to you than your moral indignation. If large numbers of people changed the channel because they were offended by the images on the screen, then the networks would drop the images like a hot iron. Moaning about it isn't going to change anything, no matter how many people do it. Cold, hard cash talks to the networks, and nothing else even whispers.

    It's measured by what we do, period. What does the fact you watched the Superbowl despite it's supporting offensive advertising say about you? I don't mean that as an attack. I mean it as a serious question.

    I can't think of even five major societies whose downfall was caused by a shift in morality. By contrast I can't think of even a single democracy which wasn't destroyed by an obsessiojn with "bread and circusses". In case you didn't know, the modern day incarnation of "bread and circusses" is "Social Security and the Superbowl".

    It's intent isn't to sell sex or objectification, either. It's to sell magazines. If Adventures in Muppetland could sell more copies than the Swimsuit Edition, then you couldn't get them to put on SI in favor of The Muppets if you held a gun to their heads. There is one and only one reason the magazine is produced: people buy it.
     
  2. lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    Well, hold on. I am the very first person on Earth to support freedom of speech and of the press and to speak out against censorship, but we're into a bit of gray area, here. Patently, an advertisement is *NOT* free speech, no matter what the Supreme Court might say. If it were free speech / press, then people wouldn't be forced to pay for it. To put it another way, it's one thing to try to prevent someone from speaking or publishing their thoughts, opinions, or creative expressions. It's a very, very different thing to prevent someone from forcing other people to pay for it, most especially when it is neither an opinion, a tutorial, nor a historical fact (aka "news") which is being conveyed. Think of it this way:

    Freedom of speech requires that no one be able to prevent you from publishing a book. Is it freedom of speech to force everyone to purchase the book once you've published it?

    The difference between censorship and seeking freedom from theft in this case has to do with why the content is being opposed.

    Well, it's more fundamental than even that. Even in the presence of total separation between church and state, the most common reason an individual seeks to be a religious leader is the same as of those who seek to be political leaders, and that is because they want power. Put most simply, leaders want to be leaders. Religion or politics is mostly just the chosen means to that end. Otherwise, they wouldn't seek to be leaders, but simply devout religious followers or active poltical participants as the case would be. Invest both political and religious power into a single entity and you wind up with a despot (or group of them) whose opinion's can't be questioned, no matter how evil they may be.

    How well it works is debatable. Whether it has actually ever been implemented in fact rather than putatively is also debatable. On the other hand, examples of the horrors which can result from supression of freedom of speech and the press or of a failure to separate church and state are thick upon the ground.

    Nonetheless, as Sir Winston Churchill said "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Whatever the case, I certainly prefer it and am willing to fight for it, and freedom of speech and of the press are absolutely vital to a democracy, or even a halfway healthy monarchy.
     
  3. smak

    smak TV MA SLV

    27,200
    2,883
    Feb 11, 2000
    NoHo, CA USA
    How dare she earn hundreds of thousands of dollars for wearing fabric.

    -smak-
     
  4. lqaddict

    lqaddict New Member

    114
    0
    Apr 4, 2005
    New York
    We're all here having a conversation, expressing our thoughts, even the original poster - this is our constitutional right - the freedom of speech. Now, if you want to impose on the society your religious believes - this is violation of the constitutional rights given to us by the U.S. Government - it is clearly stated that the United States of America maintains separation of the Government Institution and Religious organizations, correct? So, to whoever claims that Tivo and its advertising policies are violating their religious believes should complain about it to their religion organization, and not to FCC (Government organization), not to the Tivo officials (last I checked Tivo did not belong to any religious organizations, and they are subject to the Government regulation). The answer from your religion organization will most probably be do not use the Tivo.
    Cliff notes: I want Penn & Teller: Bulshit! return to SHO!!!
     
  5. mattack

    mattack Well-Known Member

    25,662
    673
    Apr 9, 2001
    sunnyvale

    Advertisements

    This board is not a government owned entity, so "freedom of speech" has absolutely nothing to do with it. (For example the banning of stock and Tivo-extraction talk that happens around here.)

    Plus, separation of church and state is NOT directly stated in the Constitution either.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
     
  6. mattack

    mattack Well-Known Member

    25,662
    673
    Apr 9, 2001
    sunnyvale
    I would think a 13 year old boy would be most interested!
     
  7. David Platt

    David Platt Mouse Master TCF Club

    11,193
    1,065
    Dec 13, 2001
    Portland, OR
    Where did the original poster say he was a Christian? Morality isn't limited to Christians or religious people, you know. Some of us heathens have morals too.
     
  8. sbourgeo

    sbourgeo Hepcat Daddio

    8,604
    364
    Nov 10, 2000
    New England
    And so the agenda of discrimination against masculinists and the oppression and sexual objectification of men continues... :eek:
     
  9. davezatz

    davezatz Funkadelic

    4,693
    215
    Apr 18, 2002
    Fairfax, VA
    I know we're largely poking fun at the OP, but the copy on the Cosmo magazine ad might be a little risque... saw it attached to the Jericho recording and it can also be found in Showcases. Something about "sex" and "sexy" - and it looks like you can subscribe right from the TiVo interface. Hmmm... I'm not a parent, but I don't think I'd mind the word/idea of "sex" whereas I'd mind junior making purchases on my credit card when I'm not looking.

    Edit: I posted a video and tested my own video advertising with a possibly inappropriate product... ;)
    http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2008-02/tivos-risque-advertising/
     
  10. RoyK

    RoyK New Member

    2,935
    1
    Oct 22, 2004
    SW VA

    There are times when ya just need to (figuratively, not literally) smack junior upside the head.
     
  11. Rebate_King

    Rebate_King New Member

    249
    0
    Nov 10, 2004
    The OP started this thread as a joke, right?
     
  12. billy in slo

    billy in slo New Member

    10
    0
    Oct 19, 2005
    I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I think the network (TNT?) aired the S.I. show after the superbowl. It only showed up because I added time to the "live" broadcast.
    I do find most advertising offensive. That is why I use TIVO and skip past commercials.
    I am not offended by your question. Because I skip commercials, I am not sure exactly what offensive advertising is supported by the superbowl. I totally agree the choice is mine to not watch anything.
    There is some truth to what you say regarding my desire to watch sports despite my moral indignation, but again that is why I have TIVO so I can make the choice not to view the offensive material.
    And again you are correct, it is all about making money and me not watching, or even "moaning" about it won't change a thing.
    Finally, I probably shouldn't start a discussion about historical societies and their downfalls because I really am not that knowledgeable about such things, my bad. Thanks for a civil and intelligent discussion though.
     
  13. ZeoTiVo

    ZeoTiVo I can't explain

    25,527
    2
    Jan 2, 2004
    ironic that an ad for 'sex for dummys" and an ad for Cosmo popped up during the playing of the video at your site.

    I do agree however that the one click and subscribed should not happen on the TiVo. TiVo should maintain a standard of having to do the proverbial 3 thumbs button and enter for any kind of transaction. In fact they should get a patent on that 3 thumbs and enter ;)
     
  14. ZeoTiVo

    ZeoTiVo I can't explain

    25,527
    2
    Jan 2, 2004
    Good point. One of the things that made me jump in this thread was the fact that all Christians would be branded by the thinking such as the OP exhibited. This idea of forcing the world to be good always rankles me. I know of no modern day worshipped diety from any of the major religions that tried to force people to be good. Punish the bad, sure but never did they want people forced into following them. Now the humans that follow the diety that is indeed another issue and our world history is full of the horror that becomes of that, including current headlines.

    Sure the OP was talking about a small thing in the form of an ad but it is still the same principle. He is free to object to the ad of course but TiVo would be right in following social norms and legal guidelines in deciding on the ads they will run. Social norms are usually about protecting people and property so those making a case of protecting the girls from objectification have some merit except for the fact they make a boatload of money for it.
     
  15. Adam1115

    Adam1115 Well-Known Member TCF Club

    36,822
    3,565
    Dec 15, 2003
    Denver ish
    BTW, the get nailed ad showed up in Strawberry Shortcake under kidzone for me.

    So to everyone railing on the OP about him using kidzone, that doesn't necessarily protect you either.
     
  16. MichaelK

    MichaelK Active Member

    7,308
    1
    Jan 10, 2002
    NJ

    now that IS a legitimate beef.

    Tivo SHOULD keep kidzone a little less edgy then that. If for no other reason then they sell it as a feature to protect kids. Someone could get a hold of that and bash them pretty hard in the media that they are "selling sex" in the kidzone.
     
  17. Adam1115

    Adam1115 Well-Known Member TCF Club

    36,822
    3,565
    Dec 15, 2003
    Denver ish
    <Shrug> I thought so, but when I brought it up here http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=381840&highlight=nailed I was told I had a dirty mind and the thread was closed.
     
  18. jsmeeker

    jsmeeker Notable Member TCF Club

    115,874
    5,265
    Apr 2, 2001
    Dallas
  19. MichaelK

    MichaelK Active Member

    7,308
    1
    Jan 10, 2002
    NJ
    I guess WE are the "right wing nut jobs" today- LOL.

    But seriously- I'm not too worried about it personally-I can handle my kids without tivo. But really they should be carefull what they put in kidzone to protect the kidzone brand. For example- many of their kid guru guide partners would probably be a bit bent if a show that that got recorded as a result of their guide had such an ad attached. (then again maybe not- some of those shows they suggest I think some mihgt not want their kids to see...)
     
  20. busyba

    busyba The Funcooker

    34,759
    302
    Feb 5, 2003
    NYC
    Well, that's fortunate.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements