Why Tebow and not gay dating ad? CBS on Super Bowl hotseat

Good overview on the trouble CBS finds itself in after agreeing to run an anti-abortion ad but refusing to air an ad from a gay Web site during the Super Bowl:

By agreeing to show an “uplifting” antiabortion ad and rejecting a Super Bowl-style ad (read: funny) for a gay dating site, CBS is already feeling the effects of its decision to air “advocacy” ads for the first time on Super Sunday.

Working in a tough advertising climate, CBS surprised many Americans by explaining a new policy on advocacy ads after news emerged that it had agreed to show an antiabortion ad featuring Florida QB Tim Tebow and his mom, Pam.

That decision caused an uproar over the ad itself, the sponsor (the conservative organization Focus on the Family), and the prospect of politics seeping into a three-hour block where most Americans are trying to escape from the daily grind.

There are some extenuating circumstances — namely that the Web site may not really have the $2.6 million it costs to run the ad and therefore was really just engaging in a (rather successful) PR stunt.

That said, I’ve yet to read a good explanation for why the anti-abortion ad is OK while the gay ad is improper. Both will be highly offensive to some viewers and both advocate a position on a pretty volatile issue for many people. CBS appears to have opened up quite a can of worms by revising their standards — and I’m unsure how they’re going to enforce their policy without being arbitrary or capricious.

And, by the way, I’m referring to the “Big Game” as the Super Bowl. Come and sue me, NFL.

U.S. May Examine College Bowl System

The Justice Department may examine the inequities of the BCS:

The Obama administration is considering examining the legality of college football’s controversial Bowl Championship Series, according to a senator who had asked for an antitrust investigation.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) said he received a letter from the Justice Department, in which it “outlined the inequities” of the BCS system and said that it is considering whether to investigate the BCS under the antitrust laws. The letter also said that the administration is exploring other options to address college football’s postseason, including encouraging the NCAA to take control and asking the Federal Trade Commission to examine the BCS’s legality under consumer-proteciton laws.

Shortly after he was elected in November 2008, Barack Obama said he would “throw my weight around a little bit” regarding college football’s lack of playoff system. Currently, the BCS stages a national title game between the two teams that finish atop a compilation of polls, while other arguably deserving teams often get excluded. Mr. Hatch, whose home-state Utah Utes were left out following the 2008 season despite a perfect record, has been advocating for changes, too, writing a letter to the president in October asking for an antitrust investigation.

As an alumnus of East Carolina University, a school in a conference that doesn’t receive an automatic BCS bowl bid, I’m quite thrilled with this move. The BCS system creates a two-tier system in college football that makes it difficult to compete fairly.

And for those who argue that the government has more important things to worry about, well, this is important, too.

Go Pirates! Arrrgghhh!

I won’t take the Oprah pledge against cell phones while driving

Oprah wants us to pledge to stay off our cell phones while we’re driving. Not me.

I understand the argument: While on the phone, drivers are more distracted and therefore more likely to get into a wreck. However, I don’t understand why this ban on conversations doesn’t apply to person-to-person communication. In fact, I’d guess that having a conversation with a passenger would be even more distracting than the cell phone variety. I’ve not heard of any efforts to ban conversations while driving. So, I doubt the validity of the claim that cell phone conversations are inherently dangerous.

I will vow to be careful while on the phone — and to use a headset or speakerphone whenever possible so that I can keep both hands on the wheel. But, I won’t take the vow to quit using the phone in the car.

No more limes, please

From a Wal-Mart in-store display:

“For the love of all that his holy, please don’t give me any more limes. I simply can’t hold any more … But, I am having a great time!”

Regarding Emotional Intelligence

Good column on the concept of Emotional Intelligence, super-shorthand for having good “people skills.” Management expert Jill Geisler notes that emotionally un-intelligent managers:

* Jump to wrong conclusions while others reason clearly
* Shift into crisis mode when others remain calm
* Fly off the handle when others keep their cool
* Expect people to deal with their frequent mood swings or outbursts
* Use hyperbolic language that ill-defines a situation
* Are oblivious to the feelings of others
* Are aware of feelings of others but unconcerned about them
* Fail to build alliances and partnerships across work groups
* Think they are behaving as a good leader should while doing all the above

So, how does one develop emotionally intelligence?

Self-awareness is, in fact, one of the keys to emotional intelligence… It’s important to understand how your emotions affect you, for better and for worse. But it’s not enough to know you have a short temper or don’t want to talk when you’re under stress. You also have to be self-managing. That’s the tricky part — learning to change the behaviors that get in the way of your effectiveness, rather than expecting people to embrace, endure or work around them.

Good stuff.

A depressing era for teenagers

Today’s teens are five times more likely to be depressed than those in the 1930s. Odd since those teens were in the midst of a far more serious economic downturn. From the The Week Magazine:

A recent study of high school and college students, built on data from psychological surveys in use since 1938, has found that anxiety, depression, and other mental-health issues are far more prevalent among youth today than during the Great Depression. A team of researchers analyzed tens of thousands responses to common psychological surveys, which asked students if they felt sad, dissatisfied, worried, isolated, or otherwise mentally troubled. On average, five times as many students in 2007 reported signs of mental illness than did those in 1938. Increases in depression and hypomania—a mixture of anxiety and an unrealistic, manic form of optimism—were particularly acute.

Researchers speculate that modern society’s emphasis on wealth and external appearance places enormous pressure on young adults, who grow up believing that success is being rich, skinny, and “hot.” “We have become a culture that focuses more on material things and less on relationships,” psychologist and lead author Jean Twenge tells ABCnews.com. Other researchers suggest that overprotective parenting, which keeps kids from developing independence and coping skills, and even a lack of sleep contribute to the pandemic of mental illness. The new study helps to quantify a trend that many mental-health experts and school officials have observed anecdotally. “The next question is: What do we do about it?” Twenge says.

How about we quit teaching our children that it’s important to be rich, skinny and hot?

Conan O’Brien is a wise man

From his speech during last night’s final show:

To all the people watching, I can never thank you enough for your kindness to me and I’ll think about it for the rest of my life. All I ask of you is one thing: please don’t be cynical. I hate cynicism — it’s my least favorite quality and it doesn’t lead anywhere.

Nobody in life gets exactly what they thought they were going to get. But if you work really hard and you’re kind, amazing things will happen.”

That’s been my experience as well.

UPDATE: Apparently, I’m not the only person who resonated with those words. I’ve posted a placard above that sums them up nicely.

BK Double Cheeseburger

According to the WSJ, the Burger King sandwich’s $1 promotional price is so low that they’re losing money. The franchisees are pretty upset about it. So, you know, just thought you’d like to know that it’s a really good deal.

Unnamed sourcing and the media shield law

Click here to read my interview with an outfit called OurBlook about the media shield law under consideration in Congress. Here’s a wee bit:

When is it justified for a publication to use a confidential source for an important story? When isn’t it?

MD: Great question. Most of the major media outlets have rules regarding how to use unnamed sourcing. Most of them stress that anonymous sources should never be allowed to make allegations, although sometimes they miss this mark. (The NY Times ombudsman took his paper to task for this last year.) Unnamed sources should be used when all other methods to go on the record have been exhausted. Some research shows that many reporters grant anonymity too easily and that sources themselves admit that they’d go on the record if pressed.

Exciting, no? You’ll have to go to the site to read this rest.

Huge ruling on campaign laws, free speech

The Supreme Court just ended the long-held ban prohibiting corporations from spending money on political advertisements:

WASHINGTON — Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

The ruling was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace will corrupt democracy.

The 5-to-4 decision represented a sharp doctrinal shift, and it will have major political and practical consequences. Specialists in campaign finance law said they expected the decision, which also applies to labor unions and other organizations, to reshape the way elections are conducted.

It’s hard to overstate the impact of this ruling. It basically throws out the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law and says that the government can’t tell corporations (including non-profit advocacy groups and labor unions) when and how they can spend their money to influence an election. Up till this point, the law banned groups from paying for ads 30 days prior to a general election unless the ads were not actually advocating for a candidate.

I think this is the correct ruling. I understand the arguments for restricting spending on campaigns — we don’t want corporations and advocacy groups with a bunch of money to misled the public buying up all the airtime right before an election. For the good of democracy, the argument goes, we should limit how much speech certain groups can have. But, in practice, corporations and advocacy groups were still spending a lot of money, despite all the laws. In Georgia, I saw plenty of ads that worked their way around the law. They’d tell me what sinister thing my elected official was up to and suggest I call them and ask them to stop. What they were really saying was — vote for the other candidate.

In the end, I agree with former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who said that “money, like water, will always find an outlet.” Crafting layer upon layer of regulation will never stem the flow of money into politics — so let’s just let it flow. In the marketplace of ideas, the best ideas will win.