You can see the ad on NARAL's website:

This morning, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the nation’s leading advocate for personal privacy and a woman’s right to choose, released a television advertisement highlighting John Roberts’ disturbing record on privacy and choice. The ad highlights a memo written by Roberts for the U.S. Attorney General in 1981, in which he calls an established liberty a “so-called ‘right to privacy’� and a brief he co-authored a decade later calling for the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, released the following statement about the ad:

“At this point in our nation’s history, we need a Supreme Court nominee who respects our fundamental right to privacy, freedom, and personal responsibility. John Roberts dismisses our ‘so-called’ right to privacy – letting politicians into the most private decisions of every American and their families. NARAL Pro-Choice America will continue to be a vocal advocate for women’s fundamental freedoms. There is just too much is at stake to let John Roberts become a decisive vote on the Supreme Court.�

NARAL Pro-Choice America has resumed a media buy that began two weeks ago. As a part of the ad campaign, the current advertisement will run nationally, and may appear in spot markets on a case-by-case basis. A print advertisement will also launch this weekend.

To me, personally, it's a bit underwhelming.

"Privacy .... Equality .... The right to choose ...."

I've already written about how I feel reproductive rights are about rights, about equality, about liberty, and how the privacy argument angle will not sway anyone, or do much to counter the so-called "pro-life" rhetoric. And "the right to choose" will always be a very weak way of stating what's at stake.

The right to choose? Put it that way, and it's obvious why we've been losing traction. This isn't about choice, it's about liberty from governmental control of an individual's body. It's about the equal rights of women to self-determination. "Choice" makes the whole thing sound like a casual convenience, when we all know it's anything but.

There's only so much you can do or say in a 15- or 30-second spot. It takes a lot of hard work. And when it comes down to it, that's not a lot of time. But some of the best ads ever managed to communicate an awful lot in 30 seconds. It doesn't take a 2-minute "1984 Macintosh" commercial to make a statement and move people.

Perhaps I am not thrilled by the ad because it tries to score a little bit with logic and a little bit with emotional appeals, and manages to do both weakly. The images of family and the young couple are knocked back by the screen text, robbing them of their power. In fact, since the text echoes the voiceover, all we end up doing is read along with the (male) voice, and we don't even see the images -- let alone absorb their emotional power. I had to watch the spot more than once and deliberately tune out the text and VO to even see the images. Having them framed in a composite doesn't help, either. In the end, the father in the opening is the only human face I can recall.

While the ad will avoid the criticisms of NARAL's previous effort, I think it still is a pretty weak piece of work, on par with local furniture store spots. (Your typical auto dealer ads do a better job.)

Who are these media companies, and where are they getting their creative people? Progressive organizations and Democratic candidates would be well advised to look outside the Beltway for a communications firm. Frankly, these people suck. And it's hurting the greater cause.

And I'm afraid this ad will do little to contribute to the discussion of the very real concerns and questions so many of us have about Roberts, and is unlikely to pull many people into that dialogue. I see a green light ahead in the confirmation hearings, and this ad does nothing to change that.

So color me disappointed.

About author

media girl also blogs at other places.