Exactly as a twitterer from MSNBC had correctly predicted last week, the Rightwing is throwing a shit fit over an awesome, multicultural Super Bowl ad.
Never mind that the Right had only pretended to be outraged by that tweet. And, sure, today’s shit fit is over a different ad than the perfectly accurate and appropriate MSNBC tweet had predicted. But, otherwise, MSNBC was absolutely right. (And the cable channel’s cowardly execs who felt it necessary to appease the loon RW extremists by deleting the tweet, apologizing for it, and then firing the person who wrote it, were pathetically and embarrassingly wrong.)
The best ad of the day on Super Bowl Sunday — and not only because it’s proven MSNBC’s fired twitterer correct — wasn’t the Cheerios ad of note (though it was awesome), it was this ad from Coca-Cola…
Cool, right? Well, apparently not to the extremists who have taken over the mainstream Right in this country, including Glenn Beck who charges today that the ad was meant “to divide us politically”…
“That’s all this ad is,” Beck said on his show this morning. “It’s an in your face — and if you don’t like it, if you’re offended by it, then you’re a racist. If you do like it, well then you’re for immigration. That’s what it is. You’re for progress. That’s all this is — is to divide people.”
Beck, who’s not insane at all, says yesterday’s “It’s Beautiful” ad was somehow in contrast to Coca-Cola’s famous 1971 “Hillside” ad.
“Remember Coke used to do a thing and we’d all hold hands?,” Beck asked. “Now it’s, ‘Have a Coke and we’ll divide you.'”
Yes. It’s Coke that’s changed. Not the Right itself. Really? Anybody honestly think the very same xenophobic wingnuts wouldn’t be throwing the very same paranoid xenophobic shit fit today had Coke run an ad with multicultural people all holding hands together and singing on a hillside yesterday, instead of in 1971, rather than the ad they ran with multicultural people singing “America the Beautiful” yesterday? For that matter, the 1971 ad is pretty much the very same idea as the ad that ran yesterday, except yesterday’s explicitly sang the praises of this country more and included the hashtag “#AmericaIsBeautiful”!
Well, that’s outrageous! Boycott!!!
But, you know, to the Glenn Becks of the world, it’s Coke that’s changed over the last 40 years, not the fact that extremists on the Right have now been allowed to become the mainstream of their party.
Here’s the America-hating 1971 ad, in case any of the wingnut loon howler monkeys screaming about yesterday’s Coke ad — celebrating America as beautiful!!! — weren’t alive yet or have forgotten about it in the course of their Fox “News”-induced brainwashing of the last several decades…
Peace.
Cenk Uygur lays the dismal response to the MSNBC tweet at the feet of its President Phil Griffin, whom he says, “is not remotely progressive.”
Oh, and it appears that our pal Glenn Beck has come up with an addition to George Orwell’s three slogans from 1984: War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength.
In Beck World, ads that unify are divisive. So its, Dividing is Unifying.
Lets not forget that Coke is about as wholesome and people loving as Dick Cheney.
So where are the wingnuts screaming Freedom of Speech! When a corporation is promoting right-wing political agenda, it’s Freedom of Speech, when it’s promoting peace, unity and community (of course Beck got it exactly backwards), it’s hateful and should be banned.
Hmm… and there is another thing… Where in the Constitution does it say Freedom of Speech “In English only”?
In the state of Wisconsin in the 1890s a the governor was one of those political heritage mongers who wanted to pass a law making English the official language of the state. There had been a recent influx of “foreigners” who spoke so many different languages. There were communities that had their own schools and newspapers that were in non-English languages. They wanted to force everyone to speak English or shut up (because it made English only people uncomfortable). After the bill did not pass the legislature the next election Wisconsin voted for a different governor, because people wanted the Freedom to speak not only whatever topics they wanted but in whatever language they wanted! I mention this the next time one of your wingnut acquaintences says “My (great) grandpartents came over here many years ago and they learned English.” The reality is many did not. They moved into communities of people who spoke their same language. Some learned English, some did not. It was the first generation to be born here that mostly acquired English.
We are a nation of immigrants. Immigrants do not always know English. Give them a generation and most of their kids will speak English. But they will be better served if they speak/read/write in two or more languages.
Brad!! Don’t drink the koolaid, er coca cola!! So coca cola had a multicultural ad that you liked (or maybe I’m missing something??)– just remember what’s wrong with coca cola corp. — here’s the wikipedia link to criticisms of coca cola corp: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr...m_of_Coca-Cola
Yeah, mixed bag here.
I would prefer not to celebrate Coke, no matter how multicultural the ads are. And, the 1971 ad is all in English, which even today would probably keep the rabid right wing more or less mollified.
But. No argument on calling out Beck and his ilk. And MSN and their ilk. Just wish it was for something other than the childhood obesity-promoting, empty calorie containing, pushing out of real food/drinks from schools, habit-forming, mega-corporation product: COKE!!
I think one can defend the celebration of diversity in an advertisement without necessarily endorsing the product that is being sold.
While there are multiple, justified, criticisms that can be directed against Coca Cola and other corporate purveyors of unhealthful beverages, the one that Beck and friends offered in response to this ad does not fall within the realm of legitimacy.
Ernie,
Good luck with that.
Yes, Beck and ilk do need to be shot down. I think it perfectly appropriate and necessary that Coke be shot down also for their child health-destroying product.
How will those beautiful multicultural singers look years from now if they guzzle Coke several times a day for a few decades?
Wasn’t (isn’t) Coke an ALEC supporter? Among other deviant behaviors?
I too think it’s stupid for a certain class of librulz to be defending a company with a laundry list of ethical violations. PLUS, you’re doing Coke’s marketing for it. Hello? http://socraticgadfly.blogspot....defending.html
Actually, when you think about it, it was sheer genius on the part of Coke’s ad-people. Piss off the rabid Right and gather a lot of left-leaning defenders, who would probably not even drink a Coke if you paid them.
Until now…Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
With all due respect, Lora, your comment @8 reflects that you missed the point I was making.
The issue isn’t whether the criticisms you and others have leveled against Coke, or any other corporation, are valid. The question is whether authors, like Brad Friedman, must include a disclaimer whenever they write about a legitimate topic (in this case the illogical right wing rants about this specific commercial).
Consider, for example, the topic of General Electric that arose in my previous piece: Towards a Practical, Affordable Battery Electric Vehicle – And Full-Employment in a Green Economy.
Now there are substantial reasons for criticizing GE’s role in the military industrial complex as one of the nation’s largest weapons manufacturers or the fact that GE paid no federal taxes on its $14 billion income in 2010.
But those facts had absolutely nothing to do with the issues I addressed in that earlier article. I believed then, and still believe, that it was appropriate to praise GE CEO Jeff Immelt for stating that his company would invest $10 billion in an electric vehicle infrastructure.
I welcome, and I’m sure Brad does as well, any and all comments that criticize the Coke product or its past association with ALEC. But, I defy any who have posted comments on this article to show me where Brad so much as hinted that he was endorsing Coca Cola as a product that people should buy or consume. He certainly does not deserve to be described as a “left-leaning defender” of the Coke product.
My problem isn’t the validity of criticism directed at Coke. My problem is that I believe the comments on this thread have unfairly tainted this piece by suggesting something that Brad never said or even implied.
So all the complaints here about Coca-Cola and nobody has yet mentioned protests of their sponsorship of the Sochi Olympics amidst condemnation of Russia’s anti-gay policies?!
We’re having Winter Olympics?
Man, not having a TV in the house really disconnects you…I thought there was a terrorist convention in Sochi based on all the MSM articles.
Ernie,
My comment at #8 meant that I don’t think you can cleanly separate the two issues. It’s a “kinder, gentler, machine gun hand,” if you will allow the somewhat extreme analogy, in my own friendly opinion.
Brad @ 14,
Well, YOU mentioned it! 🙂
Ernie @ 13,
I don’t think there is much similar between Brad’s article about how great the Coke ad is and your article about battery electric vehicles.
Your paragraph about GM:
This paragraph is maybe 5% of the total article. Your whole article is not about how cool or awesome GE’s investment in electric vehicles is.
Apples and oranges, I do believe.
Also, if you read carefully, you will see that in my tongue-in-cheek comment #12, I did NOT say that Brad was a “left-leaning defender of the Coke product,” any more than he did! He defended the AD, which is what I totally meant.
Ah, but it seemed that way, didn’t it? For BOTH of us. I make my point.
WHILE I was actually watching this commercial during the Super Bowl, before it was even over, I said to those in the room with me, “Watch the right-wing-o-sphere go apeshit over this commercial on Monday”. And, sure as shit, ……..
coke commercial = chick fil a = ground zero mosque = death panels = purple teletubby = etc etc etc etc etc etc
Lora @18 wrote:
First, while I didn’t use those precise words, the gist of the paragraph you quoted was that GE’s investment in EV infrastructure is “cool and awesome.”
Second, aside from the “Have a Coke” tongue-in-cheek headline, I am still having trouble finding anything in Brad’s article that suggests that drinking unhealthy Coca Cola is either “cool” or “awesome.”
Third, while I would agree that only a small percentage of my EV piece pertained to GE as compared to this one, I am having trouble understanding how that is relevant Are you saying that, when a particular corporation becomes the subject of an article, a journalist must evaluate the percentage of that article that references the corporation in order to determine whether to include a disclaimer? If so, what percentage would that be?
Should that disclaimer reveal every negative thing that corporation has done or may be doing? (And how much longer would this relatively straightforward blog item have become if Brad had done that?)
Fourth, and this goes to my central point, would it have been either fair or accurate of Brad @14 to conclude that you supported Coke’s Sochi ad campaign because you didn’t mention it in your earlier comments?
If not, then why is it either fair or accurate for you to criticize Brad for not mentioning otherwise valid criticism of the unhealthy quality of the Coca Cola product with respect to an article that focused exclusively on the radical right’s hysterical and racist response to the topic of diversity — a topic that just happened to have arisen within the context of a Coca Cola ad?
Ernie,
You know I have a lot of respect for both you and Brad and the Brad Blog in general, so please know that if I take issue with anything here, it is out of a heartfelt good will.
I don’t know that I started out criticizing Brad at all… I just expressed a wish that the Coke product was not front and center of a fight with the rabid right. And you’re right — it was the ad, not the product that Brad was celebrating.
But! The ad’s ultimate purpose was to sell the product, right? I can’t see any argument there. So I made the point later on that I don’t think you can easily separate the two and come out in glowing terms for an ad that sells a questionable if not actually harmful product and not in some way appear to be accepting of the product or the company.
I’m just saying that the focus of Brad’s piece as I see it is about what a great ad Coke made and how predictable is the nutty and ridiculous brouhaha the rabid right is making out of the whole thing.
I basically said, Gee, I agree, but I wish it wasn’t Coke.
Brad often does put disclaimers into articles that come out in favor of an action by a side he typically disagrees with. He will often say something like: even though the guy’s a Republican and I disagree with his policies, in this instance I support him. (I would be happy to find and provide links if desired. But I think you’ll agree that he has said this sort of thing many times.)
Sorry, Ernie, I respectfully disagree — the GM quote was strictly factual. No “cool” or “awesome” there, except as the reader might interpret for him- or her- self.
So, no, I think it’s a judgment call each time; you can’t come up with a boilerplate, and I don’t have any major (and scarcely any minor) problem with Brad’s article.
(But let’s say if Dick Cheney had made the ad… there would have been a (possibly humorous)disclaimer, dontcha think…?)