The AFA Continues To Hurl Brickbats at Ford

Posted by: David Kiley on May 31, 2006

The headline: Ford supports homosexual polygamy.

Really? Wow! And to think the company doersn’t even market a competitive minivan to hold all those extra partners.

The American Family Association’s newest rave, or is it rant, against Ford is that the automaker supports/advocates a homosexual polygamist lifestyle by virtue of advertising in The Advocate, a magazine for gays that contains a story on the subject.

Yikes.

I guess if Ford ran an ad in National Geographic about South American peoples who live in the rain forest and live mostly naked, the AFA would issue a release complaining Ford supports running around naked instead of wearing clothes. No? Hmmmmm. If a company, say Ford, advertises in a newspaper that runs an editorial in favor of drilling for oil in Alaska’s Arctic slope, would that mean that Ford supported that specific position? I think not.

It’s not that I have an issue with the AFA taking a position. This is America. Evangelize whatever position you want. It’s that I think it’s ridiculous to use such simple-minded arguments to make their point and stir people up around an issue filled with emotionally charged opinions.

Reader Comments

Dr511scj

June 14, 2006 11:12 AM

The fatal flaw in your sarcastic, if not sophomoric, argument is that if FoMoCo ran huge ads in a niche newspaper with a single-minded focus on expanded "freedom" to drill for oil, notwithstanding any environmental impacts, or in an obscure magazine focused almost exclusively on promoting tribal nudity as a civilized, Western lifestyle, then opponents similarly situated to the AFA WOULD properly tie Ford's sustaining ad sponsorships to the editorial content.

Surely you are sophisticated enough to acknowledge that without advertising subsidies, most magazines, including the obscure homosexual advocacy rags Ford is sustaining, would be sharply limited in size, content, staffing and circulation.

Surely, if FoMoCo bought the back cover of a Knights of Columbus magazine or a Southern Baptist newspaper, some "diversity" advocates on the left would charge Ford with subsidizing "Christian fundamentalism." Would you then say it was "ridiculous to use such simple-minded arguments to make their point and stir people up around an issue filled with emotionally charged opinions?" I suspect not.

Ford ought to remain neutral with respect to taking sides in the "emotionally charged" cultural war over drastically expanded special rights, special protections and special privileges based solely upon one's public self-identification with particular forms of historically-controversial sexual conduct.

Post a comment

 

About

News, opinions, inflammatory meanderings and occasional ravings about the world of advertising, marketing and media. By marketing editor Burt Helm, Innovation Editor Helen Walters, and senior correspondent Michael Arndt.

BW Mall - Sponsored Links

Buy a link now!