Update to, "Is it discrimination for Fox and ABC to refuse to air a plus size lingerie ad?"
In the original post, I said the question was skewered for assuming they wanted to edit the ad, because it was a plus-size model. I said they probably wanted to edit it because she was showing too much cleavage, not because they were discriminating against a full-figure model.
Well, it turns out I was right. It also turns out that starla had the wrong information because both networks DID air the ad.
If you go to the Lane Bryant Web site, obviously they made a stink about it because it is their ad. Equally obvious is that they can't be objective about the situation, but we can. Here are some quotes directly from the Lane Bryant site:
"ABC refused to show the commercial during “Dancing with the Stars” without restricting our airtime to the final moments of the show. Fox demanded excessive re-edits and rebuffed it three times before relenting to air it during the final 10 minutes of “American Idol,” but only after we threatened to pull the ad buy."
So both shows aired the ad, but at the end of the shows. They probably did that because it was a later time period.
The plot thickens. Lane Bryant also said:
" If Victoria’s Secret and Playtex can run ads at any time during the 9pm to 10pm hour, why is Lane Bryant restricted only to the final 10 minutes?"
The network exclaimed, she has “too much cleavage” Gasp!
Lane Bryant then said:
"Does that make sense to you? It doesn’t to us either."
"Does this smack of a double standard? Yep. It does to us, too."
So it turns out I was right because that's what I said. Now, whether or not you agree there was too much cleavage is irrelevant. The point is that I said there was probably too much cleavage and they considered it too risque, and that point has now been confirmed by Lane Bryant themselves.
So the issue is whether or not you think the networks are being prudish and not are the networks discriminating against plus-size models, as the question was originally incorrectly framed. It seems as if starla got the biased information from the Lane Bryant site, and fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
So what have we learned from this? Don't believe everything you read. ;)
I would be interested to see if the people who answered the original question, would now like to revise their answers, now that they have more of the objective facts before them.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$2 Answers
So as you said, never believe everything you read. Everything printed is written by a person with biases.
Another issue that might be interesting is to see how many edits ads with skinny models go through. Then we might really be able to find out if what Lane Bryant went through was a normal type edit or was discriminatory based on the weight of the model. That would be a better way for me to know if it really was her cleavage (as was claimed) or the weight of the model. Until I know that, I will probably still come down on the side of the company that thinks they are being discriminated against by a network. In the bigger picture area, tv execs are not known to be humanitarians and only to do what they feel will make the most money for the network. The company is trying to do the same thing; however, the execs control the air waves. They decide what we can and cannot see. They ultimately have more power than the company and they throw their power around when they feel like it.
So, I'm going to still side with the company over the network.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
I do feel comfortable saying that it's not discrimination. However, they're still way to picky and sensitive. People get offended over anything these days, so it's a little unfortunate that large corporations are still caving to it. Aren't large corporations known for *not* caving to public opinion, government intervention, etc? Seems like at least two large companies have gone soft.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
You both made excellent points. What I don't understand is why would the networks discrimate against a plus-size model? That doesn't make sense to me. Lane Bryant is saying that the networks would not have made a fuss over the ad, if the model were skinny. They're implying that they don't want to show "heavy" models on TV because it doesn't fit their sense of beauty. I find that difficult to believe.
Perhaps, because she was full-figured, there was more cleavage to reveal than with the average skinny model. That would simply indicate that the problem was with the cleavage and not with the model's weight.
For the record, personally I don't see anything wrong with the ad, but I can see why the networks considered it too risque.
For reference, here is a picture of a Victoria's Secret model. Note that despite what many people said, she is not revealing as much clevage as the Lane Bryant model did.
http://www2.victoriassecret.com/commerce/onlineProductDisplay.vs?namespace=productDisplay&origin=onlineProductDisplay.jsp&event=display&prnbr=GN-255057&page=1&cgname=OSBRPVERVIL&rfnbr=5708
