"The network shot down the commercial Friday in a letter to the site -- ManCrunch.com -- saying the 'creative is not within the Network's Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday,'" reported Jason Hibberd at The Live Feed.
Hibberd cited a letter from CBS in which the network expressed concern the site didn't have the money to pay for the ad (video of ad embedded below the fold):
Also the network said its sales department had difficulty verifying the credit of the site to guarantee payment of the estimated $2.5 million cost to air the ad.
"After reviewing the ad - which is entirely commercial in nature - our Standards and Practices department decided not to accept this particular spot," said CBS in a statement. "As always, we are open to working with the client on alternative submissions."
Sources said the network felt the site was using the tried-and-true tactic of generating free publicity by submitting a Super Bowl ad they knew was likely to be rejected and was ultimately unwilling to pay for.
This decision is already generating liberal media outrage given CBS's decision to air a pro-family ad featuring Florida Gators quarterback Tim Tebow.
Entertainment Weekly reported Saturday:
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has released a statement asking CBS to publicly explain its advertising standards after rejecting a proposed Super Bowl commercial from gay dating website Mancrunch.com. The statement points out that the rejection follows the network having recently approved a controversial Super Bowl spot from the Christian organization Focus on Family. "This network should come clean to the public about what's going on because this seems to be a homophobic double standard," said GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios.
USA Today has also reported on GLAAD's statement, as certainly will many other liberal press outlets as the Super Bowl nears.
Exit questions: Was CBS right in this decision? Was this clearly a publicity stunt by a website that couldn't possibly afford the multi-million dollar fee for this ad? Or is there a double standard at play here, one that for a change benefited conservatives?
