The NFL has a long history of rejecting overly political ads during game programming. However, it went too far recently in refusing an ad from a government agency during the Super Bowl. Sound improbable? Not when you learn that the agency in question was the Border Patrol (HT: bulletproof):
The National Football League refused to run a recruitment ad for the U.S. Border Patrol in last week's Super Bowl program, saying it was "controversial" because it mentioned duties such as fighting terrorism and stopping drugs and illegal aliens at the border.
"The ad that the department submitted was specific to Border Patrol, and it mentioned terrorism. We were not comfortable with that," said Greg Aiello, a spokesman for the NFL. "The borders, the immigration debate is a very controversial issue, and we were sensitive to any perception we were injecting ourselves into that."
The NFL's rejection didn't sit well with Border Patrol agents, who called it a snub of their role in homeland security and said it was "more than a little puzzling."
"The NFL missed a golden opportunity to reach countless patriotic citizens who want to answer the call to help prevent another terrorist attack on American soil," said T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, the union that represents the agency's nonsupervisory personnel. [...]
Story Continues Below Ad ↓Other major leagues have had no problems running the ad, a Border Patrol spokesman said. It has been accepted to run in programs for the upcoming NBA All Star Game and the NCAA Final Four, as well as in Pro BullRider magazine, the spokesman said.
The NFL's snub came to light last week during Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's testimony before a congressional panel. Mr. Chertoff said the ad was rejected, "much to my chagrin."
Mr. Aiello said that the NFL offered the department a chance to run a generic recruiting ad, similar to ads the U.S. military runs, but that the league never heard back from it.
"We proposed a more generic recruiting ad for the department that didn't highlight the borders, which brings up the immigration issue and the immigration debate. That's controversial," he said.
That position stands in stark contrast to the ongoing debate in Congress, where among all the thorny issues related to immigration, the one that wins near-unanimous agreement is the need for more boots on the ground.
"Since almost every American favors securing our borders and the overwhelming majority of legislators on both sides of the immigration debate support significant increases in the number of Border Patrol agents, it is extremely difficult to imagine how those issues could be perceived as controversial," Mr. Bonner said.
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator and editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
NFL
February 15, 2007 - 12:03 ET by BBallleaperThe NFL, however, doesn't mind in the least when Fox allows ultra leftists like Spike Lee to sit in the broadcast booth criticizing WASPs, President Bush, Conservatives, Christians, etc. Politics are just fine with the NFL (who exercise content over all aspects of the game including the televised broadcast) when it suits the leftist agenda of the Drive-By media!
You mean the same Spike Lee w
February 15, 2007 - 14:48 ET by Matthew SheffieldYou mean the same Spike Lee who ranted extensively on ESPN against the Bush admin over Katrina?
I thought so. Yes, it's hypocrisy season at the NFL.
The same ESPN that canned Lim
February 15, 2007 - 16:54 ET by Dave RThe same ESPN that canned Limbaugh then telling us the reason was that Rush was too ahh, political?
I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman
ESPN...out to take over the entire world
February 15, 2007 - 22:22 ET by UnsaneThe same ESPN that had Basset Obama dropped into the intro to a Bears Monday Night game?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???" - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
NFL does not want to upset La
February 15, 2007 - 12:37 ET by Subsailor599NFL does not want to upset Latin American fans, but they do not mind upsetting US fans. It's a real shame that politics govern sports.
Sports
February 15, 2007 - 12:59 ET by iveseenitallSports reporters---as liberal as they come. I laughed at their pathetic attempt to inject race into the Super Bowl. So glad Dungy injected God instead.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Amen to that!(Thanks for the
February 16, 2007 - 13:12 ET by bulletproofAmen to that!
(Thanks for the h/t MS)
The No Fun League
February 15, 2007 - 12:59 ET by Six String SpiffDoes this surprise anybody? This is the same league that no longer allows "team celebration" after a touchdown. It would be a cryin shame if the NFL forced me to tune out due to this idiocy. How in the world is the Border Patrol contorversial?
WHY ARE MY POSTS BEING EDITED? I HAD "NO FUN LEAGUE" In there! WTF is going on?!
Save the editing for profanity for cryin out loud
Sure, I watch the MSM... Through a pair of crosshairs.
The NFL Is A Joke
February 15, 2007 - 13:07 ET by emjem24Airing a Border Patrol commerical is controversial but having Janet Jackson bare her breast isn't? Give me a break. This organization is a bunch of tight-fisted, money-grubbing fools who encourage teams to give ungodly amounts of money to football players who not only are thugs but aren't good enough to be role models for kids. How is it they have the "moral authority" to decide what's right to air and what's not? This decision is about as hypocritical as it gets.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
The NFL is a show. It's no
February 15, 2007 - 13:55 ET by mattmThe NFL is a show. It's no different from "The West Wing" or the Nightly News. It's partially scripted...some outcomes are predetermined, based on marketing considerations. If they feel like a border patrol ad will harm them financially, they won't run it - unless they have a political agenda - then, they'll sacrifice a few dollars.
before 6 PM
February 15, 2007 - 17:06 ET by florida_chadWell, I think we have to sepa
February 15, 2007 - 17:16 ET by sarcasmoWell, I think we have to separate the right to make the decision (wow, do I miss the bold button!) from whether the decision was the right decision, as they're 2 different issues. I'll take #1 at 4:11PM EST -- the NFL has the right, as a "private" business, to do this.
But sarcasmo, you ask, why'd you put the word "private" in scare-quotes like you do with "debate" these days? Glad you asked, Bunkie! Because the NFL has denied being a monopoly, but they sure act like one sometimes, and in the USFL case a jury found they'd acted as one...Anyway, as consumers of pro football, you have very few choices, and maybe in cases like this that's a bad-thing? But for the main question it's beside the point, private businesses have the absolute right to have policies on what they allow.
JMR
Because they have the right d
February 15, 2007 - 17:25 ET by florida_chadExactly. But because you have
February 15, 2007 - 17:31 ET by sarcasmoExactly. But because you have very little choice as a consumer of this particular thing (and baseball too, but it's at least an explicit monopoly!) arbitrary decisions like this are likely to cost the decision-makers little or nothing come next football season...
JMR
sarc... ...as an aside...wha
February 15, 2007 - 17:29 ET by bigtimer...as an aside...what is going on with the bold and other buttons missing at the top of the frame we post in?
Thought it was just me...driving me nuts!
Thanks if you have the time.
Matthew turned 'em off in ord
February 15, 2007 - 17:32 ET by sarcasmoMatthew turned 'em off in order to speed comment reply times, I think.
JMR
Oh. Guess that makes sense..
February 15, 2007 - 17:36 ET by bigtimerGuess that makes sense....LOL!
That tells me a lot.
Guess I will learn the PC the longer I am on it...
Thanks sarc.
bigtimer, as a friend I say t
February 15, 2007 - 17:45 ET by sarcasmobigtimer, as a friend I say this...Follow the example of Rush Limbaugh and get an Apple.
JMR
That I will do sarc...when th
February 15, 2007 - 17:53 ET by bigtimerLOL...
Thanks once again.
code buttons
February 15, 2007 - 19:20 ET by saurusIt's actually pretty easy to remember the html code for these things, bigtimers.
To make a word or phrase BOLD, just encase same with the tags "< b >< /b >" or "< strong >< /strong >"
To give emphasis, just use "< em >< /em > " around the words or phrase.
It's all listed below the editing box:)
Geez, sarc, that's a rather,
February 16, 2007 - 13:37 ET by bulletproofGeez, sarc, that's a rather, um, objective view. But "rights" aren't the issue. I believe the point (whether I'm making it too late to matter now or not) is that it is a rather perplexing position considering the viewership base and the utter paucity of Hispanics flooding the practice fields. And the short-term memory loss of the general public is hardly an issue if the philosophy of the NFL Empire is to kowtow the Hate-Speech paranoia until China invades and socializes the capitalism that gave them the choice to demonstrate their witless cowardice in the first place. I may be only one, but I'm one less for them. That is to say that wherever I can withhold my support from or raise my support against them I will (my right as a private citizen until China takes over). Hopefully a few million others will eventually agree...then they'll stop offending 79% of the U.S. population.
For me, rights and/or money
February 16, 2007 - 13:57 ET by sarcasmoFor me, rights and/or money are always the issue. The NFL has rights as a business (modulo being a monopoly, to which I of course object) and offended individuals have a right not to consume products from businesses whose actions offend them (modulo the NFL's de-facto status as a monopoly, despite unconvincing NFL-denials to the contrary). Simple!
JMR
sarc, while I agree that the
February 16, 2007 - 14:29 ET by Conservative Voicesarc, while I agree that the NFL has the right, you are wrong to claim they are a monopoly. Sure they are the only one who provides the service of pro-football, but there are other sports in the arena. You could claim Pepsi is a monoploy because it is the only company that makes pepsi, but you would be wrong.
And I don't think anyone here is claiming the NFL doesn't have that right to choose which commercials they want to take. Rather I think it is clear everyone is saying that choice does not bode well with people who tend to be the fan base. Will it be enough to affect the bottom line, probably not since it isn't well known.
Talk to the USFL-jury, and
February 16, 2007 - 14:41 ET by sarcasmoTalk to the USFL-jury, and google will tell you that your argument is with them-not-me, I just reported the facts to you. And here your Pepsi-analogy is particularly-bad because Pepsi has Coke & others, while the best excuse the NFL has for "competition" is either arena or college football. Are those really the same as Pepsi vs Coke? Not in the south, anyway (Coke in small bottles ice-cold rules, IMO).
Also, despite what sure-seems very-much like an NFL-monopoly if it isn't, I think this might somehow affect the NFL's bottom line, too. If I were a NASCAR (or sarcasmo's real-addiction -- ESPN poker-porn with that SCHLUB Jamie Gold winning just because he got the damn cards, despite being a jerk -- AARGH!) adman, I'd be making ads that specifically-attack the NFL for this decision & specifically-ask that peole like "conservative voice" come to NASCAR (or WSOP) events. Maybe you'd come and maybe you wouldn't, but clearly a gesture like giving the border-patrol a free ad slot would garner a lot of good publicity with lots of people right now for a variety of ways that people could spend leisure-time. My main goal here is, just for this one issue, that big-government somehow NOT get any more involved than they already are.
JMR
I used to have a great deal o
February 15, 2007 - 17:20 ET by Dave RI used to have a great deal of respect for the NFL as an organization, as I considered it to be a very well-run entity, but in recent years it seems that political correctness has become an increased priority with them to the point that it has become tiresome. Telling players they cannot celebrate excessively? Telling fans what size TV they are allowed to watch the games on? What kind of crap is that? I thought this was America.
Now we have them pandering to illegal aliens (who in my judgment are nothing less than criminals) in an apparent effort to not offend them. This is almost as bad as BoA planning to issue these very same criminals credit cards. Could you imagine NASCAR refusing to air an add by Ford or GM because it might cheese off the people at Toyota? Now THAT would go over really well with Nascar fans, wouldn't it?.
I think the NFL is losing sight of who it is that makes up the bulk of their fan base, and with all due respect to Martha Stewart, it ain't the people who serve Chardonnay, hummus dips and quiche at Super Bowl parties!
I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman
The NFL
February 15, 2007 - 19:11 ET by saurusFor obvious reasons, I am unable to identify my connection to the NFL, but the left leaning policies of this once great organization would - if it came to light - completely discredit it.
A few examples...
It may not be public knowledge, but the head of NFL Security - and incidently the security directors of every team - are former FBI agents. It's a club of sorts - non-agents need not apply for any position therein. For years the drug testing arm of security was populated mostly by experts in the field - retired DEA/BNDD agents. IOW, guys who really knew what they were doing, as opposed to FBI agents. As a consequence, most of these agents were white men.
Obviously, in the wake of "The Reverend" Jesse Jacksons blackmailing of the NFL to hire minority coaches and personnel - that couldn't not stand. So ... the NFL office promptly fired all the former DEA/BNDD agents and replaced them with former FBI agents (black ones) and thereby tightened the FBI's hold on the organization.
The coddling of black (and some white) NFL players by the organization would disgust most Americans. Their run-ins with the legal system are constantly covered up, their bad acts minimized and excuses made for, outright criminals in the league are promoted as role models for our kids. True, there are white players and coaches who run afoul of the law, but the percentage as compared to black players and coaches is so small as to be incalculable. I personally am aware of white coaches who had the temerity to criticize black coaches being fired for no other reason, although the NFL cited "other reasons" for the firing if they acknowledged it at all.
Some of the many reasons my connection with the NFL will shortly end.