A 2008 press release advertising a public service announcement (produced by The Candie’s Foundation) to be aired during an episode of Gossip Girl introduces the video clip shown in the previous post. The release also states the publishing of their talking points list would coincide with the TV ad, proffering parents a discussion tool to use when talking with their teenagers about “the devasting consequences of teen pregnancy”. (It was all about promoting teen abstinence, you see, not their provocative tee-shirts.)
The talking points appeared in the New York Times and the New York Post. It’s reported that USA Today was scheduled to also publish the ad, but pulled out at the last minute using the ambiguous excuse of “unable to accomodate” it [the ad].
Hmm… October 2008. I’m trying to think what might have been going on nationally at the time… well let’s have a sticky beak at the ad and maybe it will jar my memory:
(click image to enlarge)
Oh my.
Could it possibly be that USA Today didn’t want the wrath of the Republican Party descending upon them like a pack of right-wnged vultures wielding giant claw-shaped scrubbers at their hard drives for publicly humiliating the daughter of the then Presidential candidate John McCain’s running mate via their dirty little walk of shame photo?
I have to tell you – and I will only say this one time… Had I been Sarah Palin when this appeared in the newspapers, I would have pounded the NY Times, the NY Post, Seventeen and The Candie’s Foundation into the ground and not stopped until grass was growing above their collective heads.What a horrible way to portray a seventeen year old girl whose only transgression was to announce to the world that she became pregnant and elected to keep her baby. Like, oh I don’t know, a few billion seventeen year olds before her?
The days of having a classmate disappear from school to go off and live on a farm with Aunt Jane long enough to give birth and put the baby up for adoption are over. And thank goodness that primitive way of looking at life is in the past. Well, for most of us anyway. (Either Neil Cole stills lives in that era or he’s just a businessman whose line of clothing wasn’t selling properly and looked around for a gimmick to up his sales. My jury is still out on that issue.)
But… the phrase “the devasting consequences of teen pregnancy” grates on my nerves like fingernails on a chalkbord. (Do we still have chalkboards?) Pregnancy is not a tragic consequence of anything. It’s a part of life. All life. Unless you’re a chicken or a turtle, maybe.
TCF also persists in likening teen pregnancy to an epidemic. Pregnancy is not a disease! It is therefore erroneous to refer to it as an epidemic.The statistical figures comparing the number of today’s teen pregnancies against those of my generation (or even my daughter’s generation) cannot be justified because today most pregnant teens are happy to share their news as opposed to my day when they were all hidden from sight and told to be quiet. We really only have about a 15-20 year window from which to glean almost-accurate stats. So Mr. Cole, looking at your numbers, is there an actual critical rise in teen pregnancies? Or are we just getting better at admitting the truth 🙂
Pregnancy is neither a sin nor a crime. Ironically enough, it is the right-wing Republican nut jobs who portray unwed pregnancy or teen pregnancy as such troubling, sinful and criminal behaviour that it must be STAMPED OUT BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE GAHhhhhhh. Their drum-banging only serves to keep our adolescents (and their parents) riddled with guilt long enough to spout sanctimonious sermons on abstinence, all the while repressing any and all sex education techniques which might actually – work.
Onya Repubs… no wonder your party is carking it.
The big thing we (today) need to take away from this ad campaign launched October 2008 is this:
Before they were for Bristol Palin, The Candie’s Foundation was dead-set against her. She was their pin-up girl for family values gone wrong. They paraded her down their walk of shame without a second glance. They didn’t even think enough of her to paint a red letter A on her forehead. Just plastered her photo all over nationally read periodicals under the neon pink & white banner of: WAKE UP AMERICA WE HAVE AN EPIDEMIC.
And yet… I don’t recall seeing this pic-ad until a reader sent it to me a few days ago. Could it be the RNC cut a deal with Neil Cole to back off? Could Sarah herself have negotiated such a deal? Could Sarah have promised full use of her daughter as a gimmick for TCF to exploit in a whole new campaign in return for TCF backing down during her campaign?
It’s just conjecture on my part. But it smells *sniff* somewhat *sniff* dare I say…fishy.
Suddenly Bristol… is chosen to be ambassador for the same organization which held her in contempt only seven months earlier. We’re to believe that in October of 2008, Bristol’s behaviour was the object of TCF’s public ridicule and yet in May of 2009, the very same organization embraced Bristol as their heroine, portraying her exact, same behaviour as a shining example of bravery and maturity… I’m… spent.
Looks like pollies aren’t the only ones who can play the flip-flop game…
You know, it took me almost a year to learn this, but when something smells really really fishy… I’ve only to close my eyes to visualize the fisherman hard at work in the background…
And in case you’re like me and have never heard of/seen the television show Gossip Girl, here’s a youtube promo of their Season Two opening episode.
Yup this will help sell abstinence alrighty! And i’m guessing the shows other sponsors were thrilled 🙂
H/T to LisanTx for the October ad… and where it led is coming next 🙂
To Comment on this post please scroll back to the title Candie’s Ambassador Bristol Palin and click the word comment just beneath – Thanks, OzMud
Oz Mudflats 
January 8, 2010 at 10:59 pm
I work at an alternative school that has many pregnant moms and a daycare. I have to agree with the phrase “devastating effects of teen pregnancy.” These children are mostly ill-equipped to be parents. The babies definitely suffer from the poor parenting. The students are immature, still very self-centered, and lacking in patience. One or two each year are great parents, but that definitely is not the norm. Furthermore, many of the teen parents end up dropping out of school and/or becoming pregnant again. Teen pregnancy is often devastating to the young parents, the babies, and the society that ends up supporting them.
January 9, 2010 at 12:57 am
Great post! While I agree that teen pregnancy, or ANY unplanned pregnancy for that matter, is not ideal and leaves the child at higher risks of poverty, less formal education, less stability in life, I think it’s a mistake to focus only on ONE consequence of unsafe sex. What about STDs, HIV/AIDS, how about low self-esteem and being treated like nothing more than a sex object (that’s mostly a problem for women, I suppose)?
January 9, 2010 at 12:59 am
There’s no need to imagine any back-room dealings with Palin over this ad…
Running that ad during the campaign would have been hugely inappropriate and probably would have violated campaign finance laws.
Disparaging (and yes I agree with you about the “epidemic” language) the minor daughter of a candidate? Any media outlet that tried to run that for FREE (that’s what a PSA is – a free ad) would rightly be excoriated for the poor judgment and likely would be tied up in lawsuits over whether or not that qualified as a political advertisement.
My guess is that Candies just proposed that ad campaign as “vaporware”, never expecting it to run, and just wanting a bit of free publicity.
(If anyone had motivation to intervene, it would be the Obama campaign – which would have been suffered all sorts of blow back over the exploitation of the Palin family’s tragic personal circumstances – remember when Karl Rove bugged his own office and went crying to the press about it?)
January 9, 2010 at 1:27 am
One more thing – while the ad says “pregnancy”, it seems clear to me that the real message is that the “epidemic” is of teenagers having S-E-X.
But that’s a private thing and almost impossible to prove. Not to mention awkward to illustrate in a PSA. (Although the Jenny McCarthy PSA went there!)
A pregnant belly followed by a baby, on the other hand, is proof. Gusty photos notwithstanding, that is… 😉
I’m actually a bit confused about whether this Candies campaign is promoting abstinence or the use of birth control.
Ok, one more more thing… it’s possible the October ad did provoke Sarah into making sure Bristol had a PAID contract – it may very well be that what she saw as most objectionable was the uncompensated use of Bristol’s image. As to why Bristol isn’t out there so much in her spokesperson role – well, frankly, she’s more the wholesome pretty girl-next-door type, not exactly a “Candies girl”. As well as being not-so-committed to the party line on abstinence. So maybe it just isn’t working out. Wonder how long the contract runs?
January 9, 2010 at 2:36 am
Bristol palin’s pregnancy was all about spin…starting with spinning Trig’s birth. It is no surprise that palin pushed her kid to “represent” the very company that had condemned her knocked up, dropped-out daughter. Palin’s kids are fair game to be thrown under the bus in the name of political expediency—Sarah does it all the time to anyone in the way of what she feels she deserves.
January 9, 2010 at 2:40 am
GhostbustersTX says “I’m actually a bit confused about whether this Candies campaign is promoting abstinence or the use of birth control.”
Well, they’re pretending to promote sexual responsibility while they use teen sex to sell their skanky line of teenage hooker-wannabe-wear, using suggestive advertising. Got it?
January 9, 2010 at 8:00 am
Great post!
I wonder how much Bristol was paid for being embarrassed? IMO, it had to be as much as Mommy Dearest demanded.
January 9, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Fantastic content OzMud. Great comments also, too. Thinking people with well formulated discussion.
WakeUpAmerica, ouch. Would you cringe if a custodial care-giver to those with Special Needs had the same harsh pronouncement?
Don’t get me wrong, babies having babies doesn’t always make for contributing adults in society, but mostly these children were wanted or are loved? Isn’t that the point of the superiority and righteousness of the pro-life platform?
Anyway, I’ll take family planning any day and all or nothing OB/GYN care, none of this cherry picking wedge issue BS. Isn’t it interesting that no one questions Sarah’s lack of birth control safeguards at her age?
Ghostbuster TX – Is the Candies campaign promoting abstinence or the use of birth control?
I don’t think Candies has figured out their intent either. They just want some lofty abstinence campaign to nod to when someone or some group criticizes their lewd marketing to bratz, slutz and young adults.
I don’t think Bristol is cut out for this stuff, mommy’s blind ambition thing hasn’t seemed to blossom in the girl just yet.
January 10, 2010 at 12:11 am
Was watching “Bones” last night, when one of the actors said, “If abstinence didn’t work in Alaska, it won’t work here.”
Teen pregnancy short changes both the parents and the child. I feel so sorry for the children brought up in this environment as they are often cast aside. Too many children are lacking parental involvement in two parent homes in the buzz of today’s world.
January 10, 2010 at 7:58 am
My mother is a retired teacher and did what was called home teaching for students who were out of school for medical reasons. Her first was a track star who had a leg amputated due to bone cancer. One boy had mono (not for 5 months, either). Another had a baby. This “mother” couldn’t even follow the directions on the meds for the baby: she cut a suppository (that was supposed to go in rectally) and poured the contents into the baby’s bottle. This “family” was a mess from the word go. It was tragic.