Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Policy

Mancrunch, Focus on Family, CBS, Super Bowl

Tim Cavanaugh | 1.31.2010 3:59 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

You know what's an offensive ad? Bud Light's "Amy" spot, in which a stalker wreckingballs a woman's house and sets fire to her lawn:

Maybe I just feel sorry for Amy, but this seems more troubling than an anti-abortion ad from Focus On the Family or an ad with two men kissing for ManCrunch.com.

Throughout playoff season, CBS has been drawing controversy for its decision to air an anti-abortion spot from Focus on the Family during Super Bowl 44. This decision seemed to contradict the Tiffany Network's in-house guidelines against airing "advocacy" ads at the network level, which the network in a 2004 statement [pdf] described as both "longstanding" and "decades old."

The decision prompted the expected protest. There's a Facebook page. Sportswriters are lamenting the injection of politics into a job where all you used to have to do was cover up Tiger's affairs.

So last week CBS announced that it was revisiting its six-years- or decades-old policy, and had become more open to airing political ads. "We have for some time moderated our approach to advocacy submissions after it became apparent that our stance did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms," a spokesman announced. "In fact, most media outlets have accepted advocacy ads for some time."

On Friday, CBS rejected an ad for the gay dating site ManCrunch.com. This was not an advocacy ad but a for-profit service ad. "CBS Standards and Practices has reviewed your proposed Super Bowl ad and concluded that the creative is not within the Network's Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday," the network wrote. "Moreover, our Sales Department has had difficulty verifying your organization's credit status."

So this is really all a story of the great credit unwind. Nevertheless, the rejected spot has started up a new round of trouble. You can now add "GLAAD wants answers about Mancrunch rejection" to the list of headlines you never thought you'd see at NBC's footballtalk site.

Focus on the Family, in a great piece of old-time football razzledazzle, is not showing its ad before the Super Bowl. Here are two FOTF officials discussing the ad, which will reportedly treat the birth of Heisman-winning quarterback Tim Tebow…

Here is the ad for Man Crunch that CBS rejected…

Here is a Mad TV sketch remarkably similar to the Man Crunch ad…

And here are Vivian Girls with their newish single "When I'm Gone"…

I'm not sure CBS, a sharecropper on government-owned spectrum that answers to an executive branch commission, is a private company. Only an organization that is under the thumb of a capricious and hidebound regulator like the FCC could have produced those mealymouthed guidelines in the first place. And even within the constraints of broadcast television, CBS has never stood out as particulary forward-looking. (I'm pretty sure the opening credits of Hawaii 5-0 is the last time CBS was really Far Out.) The network's position seems pretty consistent here: They're in the business of failing to offend the largest audience possible. The network can probably make a consistent case that FOTF fits and ManCrunch doesn't on that basis.

But because they're network weasels, they can't really make that argument. So we're left with inconsistent hocus pocus about standards. The most offensive thing in the Man Crunch ad is that the Packers and the Vikings are not playing in Super Bowl 44, nor could they, since they're in the same conference. (I'm pretty sure it's gay not to know that.) The irony (other than that the Super Bowl, a celebration of national unity that always ends up making you feel how alone you truly are, is the ideal time slot for a matchmaking ad) is that if you used that Man Crunch script for a funny beer ad, nobody would have thought anything of it. 

And here's McGarrett, telling us all to hang loose:

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Bad Hoboken Cop Punished With $132,000/Year Vacation

Tim Cavanaugh
PolicyCultureSportsTelevisionSexTelecommunications Policy
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (119)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. swillfredo pareto   15 years ago

    You know what's an offensive ad beer? Bud Light.

    1. Suki   15 years ago

      TIM! Thanks for all the hat tips. NOT!

      And I prefer The Veronicas over Vivian Girls, on the whole they both suck scale. The Ting Tings actually manage to do a more entertaining bit of mindless sound.

      1. Banjos Kick Ass!   15 years ago

        It's all a throwback to No Wave pretentious bullshit. Just thinking about it makes me want to shove an icepick in my ear.

        1. mountmccabe   15 years ago

          Vivian Girls are in no way a throwback to No Wave. Their music is far too pop, far too easy on the ears to have anything to do with that scene.

          They are more early-JAMC and Slumberland-style noise pop and in turn the Ramones and the Velvet Underground and the Beach Boys and on back to 50s pop and....

  2. Prolefeed   15 years ago

    that if you used that Man Crunch script for a funny beer ad, nobody would have thought anything of it.

    I'm pretty sure that running an ad showing two guys making out would have cost Budweiser some sales.

    1. Suki   15 years ago

      Not to mention Epi and MNG doing the first marriage all in one body.

  3. Willlie S   15 years ago

    I've got nothing against gays. Live and let live, I say.

    But, sorry, I don't wanna see guys puckering up in cheesy commercials while I'm trying to watch the damn Super Bowl!

    This is a very modest line to draw, and I'm drawing it. Pass the chips and guacamole.

    1. healthscarequotes   15 years ago

      Pass the chips and guacamole.

      thats what he said

    2. Dean   15 years ago

      I agree. Now if it was two chicks...

    3. ClubMedSux   15 years ago

      Seriously. I always count on the Super Bowl to provide me four or so hours where I don't have to worry about suppressing my latent homoeroticism.

    4. Suki   15 years ago

      Pass the chips and guacamole.

      Don't you mean chaps?

    5. GaLibertarian   15 years ago

      Dunno. Turns me on. Then again I wouldn't be caught dead watching the super bowl.

  4. Ice   15 years ago

    Didn't Focus on the Family just recently lay off like a ton of its staff? And now it's airing superbowl ads that cost probably millions of dollars? Lame.

    1. yonemoto   15 years ago

      somebody needs a stimulus/bailout.

      1. Ron L   15 years ago

        yonemoto|1.31.10 @ 4:55PM|#
        "somebody needs a stimulus..."
        Well, to a certain demographic, that's what the mancrunch ad was supposed to do.

        1. miklen   15 years ago

          +1

    2. Kent   15 years ago

      I do not keep track of hiring and layoffs on FotF, but all the free publicity they are getting from their over-the-top critics saying things like "hate has no place in the Super Bowl" will probably yield a few million in new contributions. Best outcome for FotF - CBS pulls the ad and it gets shown over and over on news shows, they get a refund of $2 million and maybe even damages from the network, and then they parlay their victim status into even more contributions.

      1. Episiarch   15 years ago

        Put simply--in deference to you, Kent--it's like lasing a stick of dynamite.

        1. Kent   15 years ago

          Yes, that is much more succinct.

          I have a soft spot - but not a mancrunch - in my heart for Tebow. His UF teams were 0-2 against Auburn, including the 2006 national championship team and the 2007 team on which TT won the Heisman.

          1. Pope Jimbo   15 years ago

            TT started crying after Bama beat them this year.

            If you ask me, TT should be doing commercials for Mancrunch.

    3. Suki   15 years ago

      Ice,

      Exactly. Those evil advocates need to concentrate on employing stamp lickers instead of putting out a message.

  5. hmm   15 years ago

    CBS can put whatever they want on their station. If it's unicorns fornicating in chocolate sauce then so be it. If it's two dudes lip wrestling for a tonsil hockey goal great. If its some religious dude happy mommy didn't coat hanger his ass fine.

    The only problem is when they are forced to show or not to show something by government. They have to explain their actions about as much as I have to explain why I have a tattoo of a Winnie-the-Pooh shitting rainbows on my left nut and Garfield fellating Snoopy on my right nut.

    1. BakedPenguin   15 years ago

      What? No unicron Swayze? or Hulk Hogan?

      1. BakedPenguin   15 years ago

        "Unicorn." And it was a centaur, anyway.

      2. Episiarch   15 years ago

        That's a centaur, you goofball. Not a "unicron", whatever that is.

        Regardless, the concept of "centaur Swayze" is completely awesome. And remember, BP, I used to fuck guys like you in prison.

        1. BakedPenguin   15 years ago

          Episiarch, "refresh" refers to more than just your lover wiping his ass, just so you know.

        2. Suki   15 years ago

          And remember, BP, I used to fuck guys like you in prison.

          LOLZ! Is that what the bottoms call it now?

        3. Pope Jimbo   15 years ago

          It's a unicorn. His hands are just covering up the horn.

      3. hmm   15 years ago

        way to gay up my thread you two. You didn't even gentrify it some so I can't even cash in. WTF?

        1. hmm   15 years ago

          thread = threaded comment

          1. Suki   15 years ago

            A stitch in time saves 69

    2. miklen   15 years ago

      +2

    3. Mo   15 years ago

      And advocacy groups can criticize CBS for airing or not airing certain ads. That's the whole point of the First Amendment.

      1. A Different Bill   15 years ago

        Sure they can, but it's pretty meaningless and ineffective and annoying to the rest of us to have to listen to the "advocacy groups'" constant whining.

  6. Jeffersonian   15 years ago

    If it's unicorns fornicating in chocolate sauce then so be it.

    That has NEA grant written all over it.

    1. Suki   15 years ago

      Only if you add urine and a crucifix

  7. hmm   15 years ago

    The signs in the background are great.

    no entry
    this equipment starts and stops automatically
    visitors subject to search before entry

  8. kinnath   15 years ago

    I'm not sure CBS, a sharecropper on government-owned spectrum that answers to an executive branch commission, is a private company.

    Da govermunt don't own no damn airwaves. Dey regulate da shit out da spectrum, no doubt. But wez libertarians prefers nobody regulate dat stuff and wez just works it out wid a bunch o handshakes.

    1. A Different Bill   15 years ago

      Troll fail

  9. Fist of Etiquette   15 years ago

    Who put up that Bud Light ad on the youtube? I haven't seen production values that bad since Brody had Kramer bootleg Cry, Cry Again.

    and

    ...if you used that Man Crunch script for a funny beer ad, nobody would have thought anything of it.

    Oh, reeeally?

  10. The Art-P.O.G.   15 years ago

    That Madtv skit was classic.

  11. Franklin Harris   15 years ago

    Keith Olbermann is still on NBC's Sunday-night football broadcast. Nothing is more offensive than that.

    1. JB   15 years ago

      No shit.

  12. Fist of Etiquette   15 years ago

    On the other hand, CBS might want to rethink selling space to Man Crunch. You all know what happens when the gays move in? Gentrification, that's what! That means higher property values on all those Super Bowl ad spaces, and more revenue for the network.

    1. hmm   15 years ago

      good point. Damn those gay gentrifying gentlemen.

      1. BakedPenguin   15 years ago

        Dramatized here.

        1. Suki   15 years ago

          BP, you are a twisted soul.

  13. Brian Sorgatz   15 years ago

    You know what's an offensive ad? Bud Light's "Amy" spot, in which a stalker wreckingballs a woman's house and sets fire to her lawn...

    Lighten up, Tim. Nobody empathizes with the stalker. Appropriately enough, the point of it is, "Get a load of this creep." Like Archie Bunker's racism, it's to be laughed at, not with.

    1. oaktownadam   15 years ago

      Indeed, I didn't interpret that ad as condoning the behavior at all...in fact, they labeled it as "Too Heavy".

      Also, it needs to be watched in context with the other ads in that campaign, like this one:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzsit1k4nXc

      1. Brian Sorgatz   15 years ago

        A-ha! No sexism here. The campaign shows men and women going equally psycho in their relationships.

    2. A Different Bill   15 years ago

      We were supposed to laugh AT Archie Bunker's racism? hmmm...

      1. Brian Sorgatz   15 years ago

        Duh! Why else would they have taped it in front of a studio audience?

        1. Brian Sorgatz   15 years ago

          Double duh on me! I didn't get ADB's joke at first.

  14. Episiarch   15 years ago

    "ManCrunch"? I keep seeing this and saying "shouldn't that be ManCrush"? I think they owe me an explanation.

    1. Fist of Etiquette   15 years ago

      The explanation will be a knee between the legs.

    2. ransom147   15 years ago

      domain taken?

    3. Suki   15 years ago

      Explain it to your non-linked persona MNG.

  15. P Brooks   15 years ago

    running an ad showing two guys making out would have cost Budweiser some sales.

    Heineken, on the other hand...

    1. BakedPenguin   15 years ago

      Is it too early to start making jokes about white Zinfandel?

      1. ransom147   15 years ago

        it's never too early for white jokes.

        1. Suki   15 years ago

          +1

      2. hmm   15 years ago

        zima

      3. Jerry   15 years ago

        Dear Reason Magazine,

        Would it be right to serve Merlot at next week's Superbowl?

        Yours truly,

        Jerry.

        1. hmm   15 years ago

          You are fine as long as none of the teams are not wearing red. If they are it would clash and be so gaudy. You will want to get a nice brie or Spanish cheese like a Manchego.

          1. hmm   15 years ago

            are wearing*

          2. hmm   15 years ago

            Tragic disaster averted. Imagine my embarrassment if you had gone looking for blue and or gold wine and then served it on my recommendation.

      4. Suki   15 years ago

        No

  16. Fist of Etiquette   15 years ago

    Amy-stalking was a shovel-ready job, Tim. Stimulus money probably paid for the wrecking ball used in that stalking, which put contractors and laborers to work restoring the house, and got Home Depot's Lawn & Garden Center some business as well. So STFU about the stalker.

  17. P Brooks   15 years ago

    Is it too early to start making jokes about white Zinfandel?

    It's never too early.

    1. ransom147   15 years ago

      oops.

  18. ed   15 years ago

    The best part of the Bud Light ad is the DO NOT ATTEMPT disclaimer at :18.

  19. Almanian   15 years ago

    It seems like they could work "wreckingballs" into a Mancrunch ad that would be really offensive creative.

    Agree w/hmm - the signs in the background are killer.

  20. TP   15 years ago

    Men on football?

  21. P Brooks   15 years ago

    If I were going to avail myself of the services of a dating services, I would definitely steer clear of one which called itself Mancrunch.

    "Mancrunch" sounds like the screen name of a angrily prolific Feministing commentress.

    1. heller   15 years ago

      I think it's a play on man-crush.

      1. Suki   15 years ago

        I think it as duh as P Brooks thinks

  22. P Brooks   15 years ago

    "If I were going to avail myself of the services of a dating services,"

    Good thing I proofread that. It might have been awkwardly worded, with misspelling.

  23. Josh M   15 years ago

    Re: the Mancrunch ad, I don't think your criticism is valid. Nothing in the ad suggests that it's taking place during the Super Bowl.

  24. OTOH   15 years ago

    "The most offensive thing in the Man Crunch ad is that the Packers and the Vikings are not playing in Super Bowl 44, nor could they, since they're in the same conference. (I'm pretty sure it's gay not to know that.)" Crap. I didn't know that and I like dick. OTOH, I am pretty sure if I knew the conference teams and I didn't like dick, I would be gay. Surely Tim doesn't think only men read Reason?

    1. Fist of Etiquette   15 years ago

      I guess he assumed all you lovely ladies read the sister magazine, Unreason.

      1. Fist of Etiquette   15 years ago

        Am I right, fellas?

        [awkward silence]

        1. ClubMedSux   15 years ago

          Sorry, Fist... My wife reads the comments here and she knows my user name. As much as I'd like to back you up, I'm more concerned with not sleeping on the couch tonight.

          1. OTOH   15 years ago

            Nothing like hearing about a well trained man.? Her fuck housekeeping poster is in the mail.

          2. Suki   15 years ago

            Don't forget to iron Her skirt before bed tonight.

        2. Episiarch   15 years ago

          C+. You needed to add something regarding nagging, uterus = hysterical, or a crack at the WNBA.

          1. OTOH   15 years ago

            Episiarch, you needed to add that you can give advice because you never get laid anyway.

            1. Episiarch   15 years ago

              Wow, that was even easier than I expected.

              1. OTOH   15 years ago

                Meaning?

                1. Suki   15 years ago

                  You are right. MNG has never been laid.

      2. A Different Bill   15 years ago

        "I just think of a man, and take away reason and accountability."

    2. Ron L   15 years ago

      Uh, Tim? I think you've been busted.

  25. heller   15 years ago

    I saw Vivian Girls opening for the Yeah Yeah Yeahs a few years ago. They got alot better.

    1. Tom Watson   15 years ago

      Do they have penises?
      Like the REAL Vivian Girls?

  26. Timon19   15 years ago

    That was a hell of a noun verbing there, Tim.

  27. Poop Slinger   15 years ago

    If you're going to do this article, do it right. The greatest coupling of gayness and the NFL ever: the Tom Brady song.

  28. Not a Libertarian   15 years ago

    OK I am both gay and reasonably pro-life

    The Mancrunch ad looks very cheaply made.
    (parenthetically, and seriously how likely is it that Vikings Boy is going get all over the Packers cub? I mean c'mon)

    The company submitted that ad with every expectation that it would not be allowed by CBS practices.

    With as little as they appear to have put into the ad, they've made their money back in the media exposure.

    And the site itself, doesn't seem to be on the cutting edge of web design either.

    On their sign-up page (I didn't follow through and create a profile) here was the following:

    "Man Crunch is the premier service connecting men with other men and allowing them to open up about the down low."

    What the fuck- "Premier service"? I have never heard of the company before the controversy.

    "connecting men with other men and allowing them to open up about the down low" About the Down-Low, huh? What is this site supposed to be, a site for closet cases and married men.

    And finally, there is a well established hook-up site "Manhunt" that might have a trademark issue with "Mancrunch".

    Does that name pass the "horny queen in a hurry" test?

    1. seriously?   15 years ago

      we're all just gonna ignore the obvious "packers" jokes?

  29. Not a Libertarian   15 years ago

    The most offensive thing in the Man Crunch ad is that the Packers and the Vikings are not playing in Super Bowl 44, nor could they, since they're in the same conference. (I'm pretty sure it's gay not to know that.)

    I'm pretty sure it's gay not to know that.

    Duly noted that I am not supposed to know anything about the NFL.

    http://www.outsports.com/

  30. Not a Libertarian   15 years ago

    Outsports has an article wondering if the ad wasn't a hoax in any event:

    http://outsports.com/jocktalkb.....-bad-hoax/

    "For everyone (including myself) who wanted to say CBS's potential rejection of the Mancrunch ad featuring two men kissing implied some homophobia, I present you evidence to another possibility: This is a terrible ad. It's clear the site owners had absolutely no intention of this ever making it to the air; It wouldn't pass the test to make it to air except after 3 a.m. and before 4 a.m.

    As for the gay content of the ad, it's marginal. It's clear the guys in the ad aren't even kissing. At this point, I'm assuming the whole ad and Mancrunch itself are a hoax. See the ad and weigh in, after the jump.

    This doesn't mean that homophobia wasn't at work. But I personally would have rejected the ad just based on the creative......."

  31. Not a Libertarian   15 years ago

    Oh, and the MadTV boys are Hot, even if straight (they kiss like straight guys, surely Michael McDonald could have given pointers)

    1. hmm   15 years ago

      For the love of god man, that is the best unintentional anti-threaded comment protest I have seen.

  32. Tulpa   15 years ago

    While it's pretty clear to me that the Mancrush ad was just a sacrificial lamb for the gay community to bash CBS over, it's kind of hard to see how that ad is branded inappropriate when the fairly risque GoDaddy.com ads, featuring women stripping down to their undies and dialing it up to 11 on the bouncy-bouncy meter, are approved every year.

    1. Not a Libertarian   15 years ago

      i feel that cbs could make the case that it was the quality of the adbuy not its content that they objected to.

      White certainly no Clio Awards nominee (by far) at least the GoDaddy ads show some production value.

      However I remember being incensed at last year's GoDaddy ad. It severely degraded my opinion of both the company _and_ Danica Patrick.

  33. Not a Libertarian   15 years ago

    And finally, McGarrett Rocks!

  34. Tulpa   15 years ago

    And even within the constraints of broadcast television, CBS has never stood out as particulary forward-looking. (I'm pretty sure the opening credits of Hawaii 5-0 is the last time CBS was really Far Out.)

    You know Nipplegate was on CBS, right?

  35. Jeremy Caldwell   15 years ago

    OG is it time for the Superbowl AGAIN? I never could understand the infatuation men have with watching a bunch of overpaid, grown men in tights running around chasing some stupid ball. I just dont get it.

    Sandi
    http://www.be-invisible.es.tc

    1. Tulpa   15 years ago

      Anonymity bot needs to get on Mancrunch ASAP.

    2. BakedPenguin   15 years ago

      Looks like anon bot is a Lions fan.

  36. .   15 years ago

    Reality is the name we give to our disappointments.

  37. Slut Bunwalla   15 years ago

    Mancrunch Rejection would be a great band name.

  38. Super Bowl   15 years ago

    Super bowl, Super bowl!
    You stolen ma soul!
    February were waiting,
    And now has come.
    And think of attending,
    Much games not some.
    Miami under lights
    Will offer more delights.
    I already got ma tix from Ticketwood.com and waiting impatiently for the games.

  39. Agammamon   15 years ago

    Packers vs Pirates, most gay game ever?

    1. Fist of Etiquette   15 years ago

      Queer as a football bat.

  40. SeeingI   15 years ago

    The real problem with that ad is that it's obviously a cheap production, and it's not really funny or anything.

  41. toni   15 years ago

    Seeing two gay guys kiss, is better than hearing, "an erection lasting more than 4 hours..." every other commercial.

  42. todd Waldman   15 years ago

    don't forget this brilliant parody summer of tears did of football. thinks it sums up everything brilliantly.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0d0pQgLNws

  43. Ben   15 years ago

    MediaCurves.com just conducted a study with 602 viewers of a news clip regarding the Focus on the Family organizations' Super Bowl ad. Results found that while the majority of viewers (62%) reported that the ad should not be pulled, pro-choice viewers were split on whether it should be aired. The majority of pro-life viewers (75%) indicated that the Super Bowl was an appropriate platform for controversial ads regarding social issues, while the majority of pro-choice viewers (66%) reported that the Super Bowl was not an appropriate platform.
    More in-depth results can be seen at:
    http://www.mediacurves.com/Adv...../Index.cfm
    Thanks,
    Ben

  44. Constant Focus   15 years ago

    I have looked at many sites on this subject and not come across a site such as yours which tells everyone everything that they need to know. I have bookmarked your site. Can anyone else suggest any other related topics that I can look for to find out further information?

  45. Constant Focus   15 years ago

    Thank you for posting this information, it will help a lot of people.Can you tell me of other source of this information?

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Is the Supreme Court Really That Divided? The Facts Say No.

Billy Binion | 6.5.2025 5:21 PM

Milton Friedman Disproved Trump's Argument for Tariffs Decades Ago

Joe Lancaster | 6.5.2025 4:35 PM

If Viewers Love PBS So Much, Let Them Pay for It

Robby Soave | 6.5.2025 3:20 PM

Florida Woman Fined $165,000 for Trivial Code Violations Takes Her Case to the Florida Supreme Court

Autumn Billings | 6.5.2025 3:05 PM

Nathan Fielder's 737 Stunt Involved Elaborate Workaround of Ridiculous 1,500-Hour Rule

Christian Britschgi | 6.5.2025 2:50 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!