The Superbowl commercial that has received a lot of special
attention is “Halftime in America.” The commercial features the American
icon, Clint Eastwood. The ad features Detroit as a “model for American
recovery.” It features every day families and the middle class workers.
"People are out of work and
they're hurting," the 81-year-old Eastwood says in his trademark gravelly
voice. "And they're all wondering what they're gonna do to make a
comeback. And we're all scared because this isn't a game. The people of Detroit
know a little something about this. They almost lost everything. But we all
pulled together. Now, Motor City is fighting again." [–reviewed at TheAssociated Press; story by Corey Williams; Feb. 6, 2012 - " 'Halftime in America' ad creates political debate"
The AP reported the story as having some kind of political
rise…or reference. Some say it hits on
the federal government’s auto industry bailouts. Others characterize it as a
story of “economic resurgence in a city that remains in fiscal disarray, with
$200 million budget and cash flow concerns that have it fending off a state
takeover.
This article does bring up the fact that it would matter who
you ask, when you ask if the ad was political. People view things
differently. Chrysler Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne said to WJR-AM Detroit, “ it was not intended to be any type of political overture on our part … you
know, we’re just an ingredient of a big machine here in this country that makes
us go on.”
The AP article focuses on Chrysler’s struggle that lead to
the bail out and undoubtedly lead to this commercial. The commercial is about
bouncing back, coming back while you’re behind, if you will.
The AP also suggests that Eastwood is a conservative who
tends to be more liberal when it comes to social issues.
Eastwood said this about the commercial, “It was meant to be a message about just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it. I thought the spirit was OK.”
Eastwood said this about the commercial, “It was meant to be a message about just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it. I thought the spirit was OK.”
To me, The Associated Press reveals a more balanced story. It
lets you make your own judgment of the commercial and what it stands for. And I
like that. On the other hand, FoxNews had a different way of viewing it…
Fox News’ Karl Rove ("Team Obama's Response To 'Halftime In America' Ad Should Make You Nervous") suggests, in an opinion piece, that the
ad suggests that Obama “deserves” a second term. Rove reported that Obama and
his administration went to social media, Twitter, to gain attention from the ad
as support for “their man.”
“David Axlerod, Obama’s chief
strategist, called the as a ‘powerful spot’ … White House Communications
Director Dan Pfeiffer tweeted: “Saving America Auto Industry: Something Eminem
and Clint Eastwood can agree on”
The response, according to Fox and Rove, is nerve racking to
think about the link between bug government and the big businesses it bailed
out. They said that the ad made it seem like the President was getting rewarded
with corporate ads by a corporation that received billions in taxpayer dollars they’ll
never pay back.
“Remember: President Obama bailed
Chrysler and GM rather than making them go through bankruptcy like airlines and
steel companies have. Then he used taxpayer dollars reward union allies while
screwing the secured bondholders.
The administration now admits
taxpayers will lose $14 billion in the auto bailout … that’s what happens when
government gets in bed with big business. And it stinks.”
I know one article is definitely an opinion piece, but I
believe both raise interesting topics regarding the ad discussed. I want to
point out that, Fox usually leans towards a more conservative kind of reporting
with its stories, and maybe that’s why this story is sided that way. Either
way, the Fox News article was more bias than The Associated Press’ article. I don’t
want to lean towards either of them as being correct or right.
I think that the commercial did what it was supposed to do,
raise a few hairs, cross a few lines and stir up the heart of America. If
Chyrsler says it wasn’t a direct political campaign, then maybe it wasn’t.
What would you decide?
No comments:
Post a Comment