Monday, February 3, 2014

Super Bowl Upsets Gun Groups by Refusing to Screen Assault Rifle Advert

The Super Bowl is arguably the biggest sporting weekend in America, with companies striving to make the best advertisements to be screened during the match

The Telegraph

The annual Super Bowl weekend has been caught up in a row over US gun rights after organisers refused to screen an advertisement for the AR-15 assault rifle during the half-time show.
The AR-15 has become synonymous with America’s heated gun debate following the Sandy Hook primary school shootings when 20 children and six teachers were shot with a version of the weapon.
The decision not to screen the advert has caused fury among the powerful American gun lobby and a Georgia-based company, Daniel Defense, which is one of several in America to manufacture the AR-15 which is the civilian variant of the military M4 carbine.
The Super Bowl is arguably the biggest sporting weekend in America, with companies striving to make the best advertisements to be screened during the match, with half-time slots costing up to $8m (£4.8m) a minute.

4 comments:

  1. The NFL holds rights to what ads are shown during their games. That's private property and I get that. Just as this is your blog and you make the rules. And in truth, this ad doesn't even try to sell a single gun. It is in essence a political ad, not really any different than Bloomberg's antigun ad that was allowed to air.
    While the NFL is well within their rights, the hypocrisy is quite evident which makes them uncomfortable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How can it be hypocrisy? You said it was private property. Can't they do what they want with it, even if that is to be political? Is everyone obliged to give equal time to all sides of an issue or else be labelled hypocrites?

      Delete
    2. They can be as hypocritical as they want, since it's their ball. (pun intended.) However, that being said, they, or their supporters cant cry poor pitiful me when someone comes out and says it.

      Delete
    3. That's not hyocrisy.

      "1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness. "

      In this case there is no falseness. They apparently support one side of the issue and not the other.

      Delete