Online debate has
raged since April 7, when the United Church of Christ
reported that Logo, Viacom's LGBT cable TV network, had
rejected its pro-inclusion TV ad. On April 13 MTV
Networks, the Viacom division of which Logo is a part,
issued its official explanation for the rejection:
"MTV Networks does not accept advocacy or religious
advertising that appears to disparage any
organization, denomination, or individual."
In response to
the back-and-forth between the church and the network,
The Advocate asked readers to weigh in with their
opinions about Viacom's decision not to air the TV
spot, known as the "Ejector" ad, because of its
depiction of gay and other nontraditional worshipers
being forcibly rocketed out of a church's pews. Following is
a selection of their responses.
"Logo's
stated reason for refusing this ad seems disingenuous, to
put it mildly. As they themselves noted in their
statement, they've aired films like
Trembling Before G-d (which hardly paints a
warm-fuzzy picture of Orthodox Judaism) and Latter
Days (ditto the Mormons). So what exactly is the
problem here? Like most of us, I haven't seen this
ad, but every description I've read seems to indicate
that it doesn't even mention any specific
denomination; it simply portrays a kind of generic,
anonymous Christian church. So precisely which
'organization, denomination, or individual' is being
'disparaged' here? The Christian establishment has a
lot to apologize for--or should I say repent
for?--in the way it's always treated gay
people. Check any reliable history book. And
it's high time we and our allies (of which Logo
evidently isn't one) start saying so. Loudly."
John Michael
Curlovich, Pittsburgh, Pa.
"Being a member
of a UCC Church, I don't understand why any media
outlet would turn down this ad. It is not against any one
race, creed, or orientation--if anything, the
entire ad (and the two previous ads) says we are open
to all people, we don't turn away anyone! If you haven't see
the ad, go to www.ucc.org."
Ron Sparks, St.
Paul UCC, Corpus Christi, Texas
"Logo is using
good judgment by not airing the UCC television ad.
Even to the casual observer, the television ad clearly
disparages other churches by suggesting that
they reject people for a variety of reasons
including sexuality. While this may be true of many
churches, painting all churches with such a broad
brush is a dangerous precedent for the network and for
its advertising standards. While many people support
the UCC's effort to be more inclusive, the same message
could have been communicated effectively without
stereotyping all churches. If Logo had allowed this
type of advertising to air, it would have opened the
door for other organizations to air offensive, disparaging,
and stereotypical advertising from groups less
inclusive than the UCC. Logo should be thanked for not
setting this dangerous precedent."
James Hutchins,
Cleveland, Ohio
"I have never, in
my 46 years of churchgoing, seen a church with ejector
seats (although I have noticed a few bouncers along the
way--a little less obvious in their suits and
ties or dresses rather than black T-shirts, but
bouncers nonetheless). The UCC's new ad is not a
documentary of rejection by another church. Rather, it uses
a fantasy to get our attention and to represent the
feelings of rejection that so many people have
experienced in the Christian church as a whole.
"I don't
believe that the ad is directed against any other church.
Rather, it is directed at all of us who have forgotten
Jesus' message of unconditional welcome and
extravagant hospitality. My hope is that
any church could run these ads, but that won't
happen until those churches look at their spoken and
unspoken policies about who is welcome to attend
worship (or can get in the door, in the case of the
physically disabled), who can teach Sunday School, who
can lead the congregation, etc. For Christians, this
ad is a fitting reminder of the work we all have to
do."
The Reverend
Karen McArthur, United Church of Christ
"I totally
disagree with Logo's decision. If they were truly a
gay-oriented channel, with gay interests at their core, they
would not have made such a decision. Clearly this is
what we get when the big media moguls are in charge
and calling the shots."
Ken Pflueger,
Simi Valley, Calif.
"Logo should run
these ads. If an LGBT-centered network expects the
support of the LGBT community, it needs to support
institutions that have courageously stood behind our
community.
"My partner is an
ordained pastor who most recently served a UCC church.
Though not a churchgoer myself, I was proud that she was
putting her Christian principles to work for a
denomination that publicly proclaimed its support of
LGBT equality from pulpit to pew. Logo's values need
to be reexamined and the decision not to air the ads needs
to be reversed."
Carol M.
Bresnahan, Ottawa Hills, Ohio
"I could
understand the fear of the major networks that made them
refuse to air the ads. It made me angry, but with the
current climate under Mr. Bush's administration I
understood. For Logo to refuse to air the ad is
incomprehensilble. Are they a network for the LGBT
community?? Apparently they are only after our $$ and
don't really care about us at all."
David
Whitwood , Sharpsburg, Ga.
"I find
it beyond ironic that in the same week that a
Baptist-affiliated school in Kentucky has literally ejected
a gay student from its campus, Logo refuses
to air a paid commercial highlighting
this behavior in some religious groups.
"What the UCC ad
shows is not an attack but a statement of fact. It is
no different than a car company saying, 'Our vehicle
outperformed that vehicle in a road test.' It is a sad
and dangerous day when we cannot even speak the
truth in an ad without it being labeled as attacking
another group."
Allan Barger,
Palm Springs, Calif.
"So what I'm
getting out of [Viacom's statement] is that as long as
it's 'advertising,' MTV Networks has one standard. But if
it's some foul-mouthed, disrespectful 20-something
agnostic, he/she can say anything as long as the
audience laughs and keeps buying drinks?
"Is it me, or is
this double-standard so obvious it's embarrassing?"
Andrew Godbey,
Wichita, Kan.
"I am deeply
disappointed by Logo's decision to not run the UCC
ad. What in the world is so unacceptable about a
church saying their doors are open to everyone?
They're not lying. I am an out and proud lesbian
member of the UCC. I love my church. The people there have
given me the greatest gifts--they have taught me
how incredibly important it is to be honest and open
with both myself and others. Surely honesty and openness
come with a price, but the price of secrecy and hiding has
always been higher, in my experience.
"[M]any
individuals--hardworking, middle-class, progressive,
and accepting folks--took money out of their own
pockets, out of their own needs, to make these ads
happen. These ads are not paid for by some media
giant, not paid for by some rich benefactor or corporate
monster who has nothing to lose....
"Surely my letter
of opposition means little to the gods in the
corporate offices. That's OK, because I know the
difference between evil and justice, and knowledge is
worth more than the almighty dollar, every time."
Dawn Sorensen
"I think it's
very sad that they wouldn't run the ad. I first saw it
on either TNT or USA. I almost fell out of the chair
laughing. What a brilliant advertisement. Too bad they
don't run it on the major networks to wake up some of
these supposed 'Christians.' Hopefully, the ad will
get more exposure in the very near future. I for one am
considering going to a UCC church now. Too bad that a
channel 'dedicated' to our point of view won't run
something so entertaining and true to life."
Mike Young,
Hoboken, N.J.
"I'm not
surprised by Logo's decision not to run the UCC commercial.
As an avid Logo & Here TV viewer since the launch of
GLBT TV, Logo's targeted audience (so it seems) are
those GLBT Americans who are considered above-the-line
'status quo.' HereTV's responsive decision to air this
campaign is the [reflection] of diversity, change, movement,
and corporate responsibility.
"My question to
both networks [is], Where are the GLBT images of the
largest demographic in the U.S.--Hispanics?"
Joseluis
louie Partida, executive producer, Grupo Vida Media
"'MTV Networks
does not accept advocacy or religious advertising that
appears to disparage any organization, denomination, or
individual.' Apparently this also would then include
[ads that criticize] hate groups from Nazis to Fred
Phelps, et al. This attitude is irresponsible. That
the message of hate that may be protected by the First
Amendment and advocated by the ACLU is not the issue
here. What we have is a policy of business that is
using convoluted logic to almost spit in the face of a
large portion of their own demographic. It also misses the
point of the ad entirely. The ad is promoting
inclusion.
"Clearly they
[MTV Networks] are more afraid of offending the people
who don't watch the channel than they are about catering to
those that do.... [This] remains an issue
regarding kowtowing to the religious right's power."
Bob Glaser
"First, my mom is
a pastor for a UCC church in Illinois. She is a major
gay rights supporter--even embarrassing this
33-year-old gay man by wearing buttons that say 'Proud
parent of an LGBT' right there in church. My partner,
Fausto, and I even prayed during their synod in July when
they all voted to accept gay marriage. I live here in L.A.
and am going to Chicago tomorrow where I hope to talk
even more about this with her....
"My question for
her will be this: I can see why some networks such as
Logo reject this because I think that if they did accept it
then precedent is set for them to accept all ads from
religions. What if a Muslim commercial came to them?
Because of fairness they would probably have to air
it. However, this ad is not negative in any way--it's
all-inclusive and all LOVE. It is not putting down one
religion, nor is it bashing anything.
"Yet what bothers
me the most is that these same decision-makers who
reject the ads fill up their airtimes with violence and sex
all night long. Most reality shows are way too
suggestive with sexual material. THAT is what should
be rejected. Dont get me wrong--it's fine for adults
(they can make their own choices), but kids are
watching--and it's not right....
"I think all we
need is time--and things are now falling into the
favor of fairness. I think it will mostly come from today's
youth.
"Lastly, I love
ya, MOM."
Chad Frighetto,
Los Angeles
"As I see it,
Logo is way out of line, as are the other networks, in
refusing to carry the UCC ad. Advertising functions to
differentiate brands; indeed, that is its raison
d'etre. The networks seem to have no problem when
Miller knocks Busch or vice versa. Why in this case?
"Logo seems to be
all over the place in censoring, which their refusing
the ad is, what goes on TV. For example, in [the movie]
Beautiful Thing--which I have seen multiple
times--Logo censors/removes the scene where
the protagonists are in the gay bar, the Gloucester,
where a drag queen admires one of the lads--which
might be shocking if Logo didn't devote hours to drag
shows. This scene is pivotal as their coming out is
sealed and they show their love for each
other. Another example is the censorship in [the movie]
Latter Days [from which Logo] leaves out
scenes which would help in a better understanding of
the movie. The question becomes, Can I trust Logo when
they present a movie I have not seen?"
Joe W. Hall
"MTV Networks,
the parent company of Logo, says they will not accept
'advertising that appears to disparage any organization,
denomination, or individual.' How does a message of
inclusion disparage anyone? What is Logo afraid of?
Other than some closet cases, how many Pat
Robertson-type folks are watching
Transgeneration or Noah's Arc? (Even
though it would do them a world of good!) Who would have
thought that CNN would be more friendly and welcoming
than Logo? I have the utmost respect for the United
Church of Christ for aiming to reach those who have
experienced the discrimination and hostility that Logo is
currently subjecting to its viewers."
Larry Meade,
Washington, D.C.
"I do not believe
that it is justified for Logo to reject the United
Church of Christ's TV ad. I am a lesbian who grew up in the
UCC church, not knowing that they were so supportive
of gay people. In a small town, the issue was never
really brought up. I was happy when the UCC stepped up
support for the LGBT community. Many in the church were not
happy, and the church lost lots of members because of
their support of the LGBT community. Why would Logo
reject an organization that risked so much for our
community? I heard on Sirius Satellite Radio that it is
because Logo has just cooperated with another church
in that making of one of their programs and was
playing favorites. I do have Logo, but will be much less
likely to support the station due to this."
Chris Keller
"In my
opinion--which is one composed having not seen, but
only having read about the ad in
question--Logo's decision is fine based on the
reasoning they have given.
"The ad, as I've
read about, depicts patrons being ejected from pews in
several churches only to finally discover welcoming arms at
the UCC. Though an honest portrayal of the situation
in many locations, it doesn't accurately reflect all
aspects of faith-based organizations. A lot of local
churches, in areas where same-sex partners and families are
more common, my own for example, there are many
churches willing to accept their same-sex
practitioners even if the overall organization they belong
to does not.
"I myself turned
away from religion as a young boy, before I knew I was
homosexual, due to the racism I'd seen whilst growing up in
the South. It led me to question the church's
practices and beliefs, and to seek out my own. Once I
realized that my actually caring about everyone on the
same level was only an additional problem to my
homosexuality, I turned away completely. I have since
met several 'Christians' who share my open love of
people, however I have also found myself averse to the
concept of 'organized' religion for other reasons.
"In the Amherst,
Mass., area where I grew up in particular, many
smaller churches or individual parishes are more open toward
their same-sex followers. In these you will find our
homosexual and lesbian brethren, as well as our
heterosexual friends who may be offended by this ad as
they will feel it puts a bad light on their own church. As
Logo often attracts many other heterosexual viewers,
even those not so open-minded, they may also be
offended as most-often they don't even realize that
having gay friends and voting against gay marriage is OK.
"Though the ad is
a very reflective, hard-hitting ad, it is an ad and
also a very political and religious one and I can see how
MTV Networks, known for its diversity and open
acceptance of all lifestyles would feel it
inappropriate to air, even on their 'gay' network."
Josh McCusker,
Massachusetts
"There's a little
bigotry happening when you refuse to broadcast a
paid-for, gay-inclusive ad for a church on your network
because of 'company-wide standards' and at the same
time tout the broadcasting of films like Latter
Days and Trembling Before G-d, which also
might be offensive to a certain audience. Viacom should
think their position over and remember who they are
trying to market Logo to. On the other
hand...let's not forget that Viacom, especially through
MTV, ComedyCentral, Showtime, and the creation of Logo
in the first place, has done a whole lot for LGBT
visibility in the media over the past years and we
have a lot to thank them for!"
W. Schmitt
"I was ready to
call up DirecTV and upgrade my programming package so
I would receive Logo. But now, after Logo rejected the
United Church of Christ's 'Ejector' ad, I have no
reason to support Logo. Time after time, liberals have
bent over backwards not to offend people with opposing
viewpoints. Time after time, conservatives who hate
organizations like the ACLU have used liberal policies
to bash liberal groups, including the ACLU.
"So I am
extremely offended by Logo TV's actions. I have not seen the
'Ejector' ad. As long as it doesn't single out a specific
church, there is absolutely no reason why Logo should
ban the ad. But even if this ad does specify a church,
to me that would not necessarily be a justification to
ban it considering what so many of these church groups
do to harm gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people
every day.
"Why do GLBT
companies like Logo work so hard to not offend the
haters when the same hate groups trample all over not just
our rights, but our lives? I cannot support any
organization that buys into this mentality when the
people who hate us are never ever concerned about
whether they are offending GLBT people."
Dennis Reed,
Cedar Park, Texas
"Logo rejecting
the UCC ad is no surprise. Viacom is more concerned
with losing revenue on its other channels if it runs this
commercial. Corporate interests rule instead of the
interests of the viewers. This is just another example
of how homophobia seethes through businesses that are
not gay-owned and the underlying message that we should be
grateful for the crumbs we are offered. This is
probably also why after a year the programming
developed by and for Logo is so lukewarm and lame."
David S Bimbi,
Hoboken, N.J.
"I for one
totally disagree with the decision not to run the UCC
commercial. When I saw the story about the commercial, I
looked UCC up online and found a local church. I was
looking for an inclusive church and found one. When
a television network that serves the GLBT
community denies a commercial that stresses inclusivness,
something is terribly wrong."
W. Merillat
"I do not agree
with Logo's decision. I think their reasoning is
suspect: Who appeared to be disparaged? Intolerant
Christians? [I] no longer can get Here TV (it was
dropped by DirecTV) in my area and am not in one of
the big cities to get Q--which isn't doing so well
anyway. So I'm stuck with Logo--not my first
choice. And now certainly not much of a choice."
Thomas NIchols
"Thursday's
statement by MTV Networks, the Viacom-owned
parent company of Logo, read, 'MTV Networks does not accept
advocacy or religious advertising that appears to
disparage any organization, denomination, or
individual...' I guess what puzzles me is what in the
UCC 'Ejector' ad MTV Networks found to disparage anyone.
I've watched the ad several times and for the life of
me, I can't see where there's any
disparaging image, text, or audio message.
Inclusivity is disparaging? Perhaps to those who would
exclude someone it would be disparaging. But if one
follows that trend of logic, then MTV Networks is
disparaging the LGBT community by excluding a commerical ad
on inclusivity. Can this get any more twisted?"
Jeffrey Radcliff