The Super Bowl XLVIII ads kick off…

…and there hasn’t even been a commercial yet. Ok, I admit this might seem petty on the surface, but I’m pretty goddamn pissed off. Over the years, I’ve experienced Super Bowl advertisements degenerate from clever, creative entertainment to raunchy, sensationalist garbage, and I’ve accepted it. I’ve seen right-wing nut jobs fork over millions to air their political garbage–anyone recall Focus on the Family’s anti-abortion ad a few years ago?–and I’ve kept my mouth shut. But what I saw in the pre-game show today took tasteless to a new level. For those of you who missed it, Fox got the rights to the game this year, and they exploited their control of the content to interrupt pre-game coverage for a half hour of Fox News and Bill O’Reilly lambasting the president.

Think about that, and forget your opinion of Barrack Obama while you do it. We’re talking about the most televised event in the world, and its exclusive broadcaster this year has set aside tens of millions of dollars worth of content time to advertise for the extreme right wing of the Republican party. “Oh, Bill O’Reilly is relatively moderate, and they just plastered a Fox News logo over it; they didn’t bring up many sensitive issues.” Fuck that. If the KKK sponsored a Super Bowl ad for white hoodies you’d all be shitting bricks. And this isn’t a conventional ad–a business transaction–a hunk of advertisement paid for in full. This is coming directly from the network that ought to be responsible for monitoring advertisement content throughout the game. This isn’t a matter of turning a blind eye for a pay check; Fox shamelessly wants you to know that this program has been brought to you by good, god-fearing straight white people (and their wives).

I suppose they’re not going to lose any viewers over it. I’m still watching–albeit on mute now until the ball’s on the ground–and the money’s already on the books anyway. It was just more dope for the already brainwashed really, and a little salt in the wound for anyone who believes in social justice. But if the NFL accepts without further comment that an endorsement of Fox Sports means an endorsement of Fox News and everything that subsidiary stands for, it’s time we all called it a fun half-century and took up soccer or cricket or something.

6 responses to “The Super Bowl XLVIII ads kick off…

  1. The Puppy Bowl? What a concept!

    Not sure what any of this matters, anyway. The advertising going from “clever, creative” entertainment into “raunchy, sensationalist garbage”? I don’t think I’ve ever seen more than a handful of advertisements on television that could have been regarded as “clever and creative”–I became accustomed to the idea of TV ads being “garbage” a long time ago.

    If you think the pro-life movement is filled with nothing but “right-wing nut-jobs”, try going to a pro-abortion rally–there aren’t enough straitjackets in the world for that mob. Not every anti-abortionist is religious (case in point: myself–I don’t believe in god, period), and you’d be surprised to learn that quite a few so-called religious types actually take an affirmative view of abortion.

    Sure, Bill O’Reilly is a douchebag, but so is Barack Obama. And at the end of the day, these folks are just actors, and the political arena is their stage. I have no doubt in my mind, none whatsoever, that behind closed doors, Bill O’Reilly would have no problem with shaking Obama’s hand and buying him a few Shirley Temples, as they trade off-colour jokes and discuss which Fox News babe they’d most like to nail–they might even watch the Super Bowl together!

    At the end of the day, if you want to make a difference, you may start by not buying any of the crap sold to you in the Super Bowl commercial breaks. Do you REALLY need a new mobile telephone (or any type of mobile phone in the first place–think about that for a moment and be honest with yourself)? Do you REALLY think that Marshawn Lynch lives on nothing but Skittles–or that you should even if he did? Do you REALLY want to go to some crappy fast food restaurant? Is it imperative that you drink a certain type of beer or purchase a particular brand of overpriced aftershave? Looking at the things I purchase, very little of it can be found advertised on television. Now imagine if hundreds of millions of people stopped buying these brands that advertise on television. And if you still bought that beer, that mobile telephone, that home entertainment system, that chocolate bar, that whatchamacallit that was shilled in yesterday’s Super Bowl, guess what? Nothing will change. Fox will keep on pushing the same diseased minds such as O’Reilly, simply because they can.


    • No need to constantly use “you” and “you” when disagreeing with the post. Makes it sound like you’re talking down on the writer and making yourself up to being superior in tone whether you mean to or not.

      For the most part I agree with the writer’s post though not in the same level he does, but I respect what his written and put out there. There’s a way to debate and talk about controversial topics without getting personal and at times you skirt and go over the line. This time you haven’t but you’re very close. It’s not the first time I’ve pointed this out to you and most of the time your comments are insightful, but there’s too many times when you go from being contrarian to just being boorish towards some of the writers in this blog. You’re reaction to a series of posts where myself and another writer want to share our hobby of figure collecting has ended prematurely because you turned to insults.

      I plan to revive that series and will see if you’ll participate in a manner that doesn’t resort to insulting the writer and their views.

      The last couple months I’ve been in a sort of haze due to personal tragedy and a near-deadly bout of swine flu, but I’m getting back my bearings and I plan to make sure this site remains one where everyone can visit and comment without things turning personal.

      I apologize if I’m picking you out, but of everyone who has commented on a regular basis on this site you’ve gone the Armond White route way too much for me to ignore. I’m not going to censor you, but be prepared for me to point out there’s an unspoken set of rules we’ve cultivated on the site that most seem to pick up on: treat others how you’d treat yourself and your loved ones. Those who don’t I’m more than happy and, Lisa has done as well, willing to chase off of the site.

      On a positive note, I agree with you that not all religious types are against abortion. They’re just the silent majority that allows their more intolerant, vocal minority to hijack their beliefs. Plus, I didn’t need Marshawn Lynch to convince me to buy and eat Skittles. I’ve been doing that since I was 10.

      As for Fox giving O’Reilly a prime segment to rake POTUS on everything he doesn’t like that’s the nature of tv politics and it’s not exclusive to American tv. In fact, the way tv political pundits treat politicians and those who oppose their views in America is quite pedestrian when compared to how other countries do it. Hell, it’s tame when compared to how pundits and news media dealt and treated politicians hundred years ago.

      Maybe I’m overreaching, but there’s a good chance that what Semtex was trying to get at was the lack of respect from O’Reilly to Obama. Hell, O’Reilly doesn’t have to like the man. He’s free to hate on Obama all he wants. It’s a free country this place we call ‘Murica, but he should respect the office and until someone else takes over the Oval Office…Obama is that office whether people like it or not.

      Puppy Bowl is nice and all, but I think Kitty Bowl will gain on them and surpass them in a couple years in popularity, if not as early as next year.

      Oh, none of the ads made me want to buy anything, though the Jaguar with its British villains was close. I just can’t afford a Jaguar right even though I do want one if just to honor my Dad who loved the bloody brand.


      • Arleigh, just to respond to your initial point (don’t worry, none of what follows is negative):

        I re-read my previous post—the constant use of the word “you” does not appear until the final paragraph—by that stage, I hoped it was obvious I wasn’t addressing any one particular person. I did not intend this as being directed at The Author of the article, but rather, The Reader. If I were directed this specifically at The Author, I would call him by name. “You” is hypothetical in this context, as I don’t profess to know for certain whether The Reader has done any of these things. I, and many others, use the term “you” in this manner. Not once have I ever thought I was being talking down to, but your mileage may vary—so in this regard, I’m happy to agree to disagree (perhaps you prefer “does one?” as opposed to “do you?”—I find either acceptable).

        I didn’t find anything inappropriate about my previous post—for the record, it’s one of the more benign rants I’ve written–I think much of your disagreement stems from the final paragraph—again, see the above. That said–I do take on board your comments regarding previous remarks I have made, in particular, in relation to collectibles reviewed on your site. As far as omitting comments from your site, I know you’re reluctant to do this, but I wouldn’t take umbrage if you did (not that you should care whether I take exception—it’s YOUR site!). Anyway, fair comments by you, Arleigh, I take them on board.

        By the way, I had to look up who Armond White is—interesting character, apparently he favours some questionable films over some great ones, but I think EVERY film reviewer and cinema buff could be accused of this! I wouldn’t go so far as heckling someone at an awards shows, though…

        (Thinks about certain thespians and directors…)

        Um…er…I’ll get back to you on that one.


    • I can’t say I have ever heard an avowed atheist present an anti-abortion argument, but that aside I agree with everything you say. But you touch on a lot of stray comments without really reaching my underlining concern. I am bothered that Fox News got away with advertising their agenda at length through the Super Bowl. It’s like if A&E had turned a blind eye to that Duck Dynasty fellow’s comments, except the NFL and Fox News are both way more powerful establishments.

      Look, blacks and women experience something distantly approaching equality in America because a taboo on taking action against them has permeated the vast majority of society. People cease to act, and people cease to speak. People cease to speak, and we slowly forget our fabricated differences. In failing to impart a similar stigma on the persecution of other “minorities”, we stagnate. In actively derailing the taboos already in place, we digress. Fox News is the primary distributive organ for proponents of this digression, and it’s incredibly disheartening that a powerful organization accustomed to walking the PC tightrope–the NFL–does not feel a need to treat Fox News as a source of controversy.


      • I think Fox was able to get away with what they did because in the end they had paid hundreds of millions of dollars to be the network in charge of this past Super Bowl.

        I have a feeling the NFL had no choice but to allow the segment to air pre-game.

        Until the NFL adds some changes to how future network tv contracts and what sort of clauses added then we’ll see more of this from Fox.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.