The Multiple Lives of a News Story
The Super Bowl is one of America’s great pastimes. Family and friends gather to eat, drink and watch 300-pound men hit each other at full force. This year’s Super Bowl attracted 111.3 million viewers.[1] It’s not just the game that draws the enormous audience. How many of us can say that we have been engaged in deep conversations during the game but proceeded to hush everyone as soon as the advertisements came on? At 3.5 million dollars for 30 seconds[2] the ads must be good. Every year each ad undergoes scrutiny by families and friends sitting on their couches and lazy-boy chairs. Winners are always crowned and losers scorned.
Among the winners this year was a Chrysler “Halftime in America” ad that played during half time. In this ad, Clint Eastwood, with his raspy cowboy voice, explains how it is half time in America. He compares Detroit with America. Detroit has faced hard times and is turning itself around and so is America -- which has struggled through tough times but, as she has done in the past, will rally and triumph. He tells us that America is strong and will rise from the dust to become a powerful nation yet again. From the moment the advertisement played, the new sphere exploded, and the story flew from site to site changing through uses of Harris’ forwarding, countering and taking an approach and eventually stirring up controversy.
The story begins the morning before the Super Bowl. Early on February 5th, the ad was played at the National Automobile Dealers Association for almost 1000 Chrysler dealers of all race, genders and political affiliations. The ad was met with extreme emotion as people “cried, and then left the room.” One dealer explained “We were all crying, crying and applauding at the same time. We were blown away. We knew what he was talking about. We’d all been through hell and back. No one was more publicly flogged than we were. We were failing. And here we are. We’re making money. ”[3] To these Chrysler dealers there was no political agenda behind the ad, it simply represented what the country had gone through, and how the United States was beginning to pull itself back up. To them the ad had one message -- it represented a recovering America. How wrong they were with their interpretations.
As soon as the Chrysler ad aired the twitter-verse exploded. Michael Moore tweeted, "Your sermon seemed 2 b a call 2 give O his 'second half.” And Michelle Malkin, a conservative blogger asked, "WTH? Did I just see Clint Eastwood fronting an auto bailout ad???[4]" Both of these individuals are affiliated with a political party, Moore with the Democrats and Malkin with the Republicans. It didn’t seem unusual for either of the two to critique the political agenda of anything but it was very unusual for them to have the same point of view
However, at first most of the responses to the ad followed what the Chrysler dealers saw, and was claimed by many as one of the best ads of the year. By the morning of February 6th, a mere 12 hours after the game ended, the ad was being hailed as great. Forbes said it was the second best ad of the Super Bowl[5] and Business Insider said that the ad “rocked the house.[6]” All seemed well for the ad.
Later on the 6th, in a Fox News interview with two noted republicans, Bill O’Reilly and Karl Rove, Rove used countering to express his concern that the Clint Eastwood ad was a pro-Obama ad. The host, O’Reilly, read the transcript of the commercial, and Rove responded, “I was frankly offended by it. I'm a huge fan of Clinton Eastwood. I thought it was an extremely well-done ad. But it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago style politics and the President of the United States and his political minions are in essence using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising.[7]” In his interview, Rove uses countering of the commercial to critique its political agenda. Rove is alluding to the auto bailout by the Obama Administration to prevent the auto industry from collapsing. Rove accuses Chrysler of using taxpayer money (from the bailout) to promote the Obama Administration. One must analyze not only the advertisement but also the person doing critiquing. Rove is a vocal right-wing Republican who served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007.[8] His background and purpose must be taken into account when reading his interview.
After only 24 hours in the new sphere, the story traveled from the Super Bowl, to social media, to being claimed as one of the greatest ads of the year, to being criticized by the right as politically biased. It seemed like the controversy was gaining traction. Clint Eastwood even felt the need to comment. He told Fox News on the 7th that "I am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message ... just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it.[9]" Eastwood took what political commentators such as Rove and O’Reilly said and forwarded it when he responded to questions from Fox News. Eastwood, a conservative who supported McCain in the 2008 election, told the country that in no way was the advertisement a political statement. Eastwood wanted to let the country know that it was “just a message.” David Limbaugh, another conservative, got in on the story, not by critiquing the ad itself or the “political agenda” but challenging Eastwood’s political standpoints by saying “Clint Eastwood's credentials as a conservative have been overrated[10]“ After three days of discussion, the attacks were no longer limited to the agenda of the ad but were expanding to the personal integrity of the actor hired to talk in the ad.
It is fascinating to follow how these news stories changed within a matter of days. Right after the “Halftime in America” ad played for 111.3 million viewers, many were inspired and some, such as the Chrysler Dealer, were in awe. Political commentators were tweeting right away but it wasn’t until almost 24 hours later when the condemnation of the ad really began. The next day, however, the main topic of conversation in all the morning shows was which was the best Super Bowl ad. All praised Halftime in America. Later that day, political commentators had a chance to form their arguments. Most of them used the literary technique of forwarding and countering to label the ad as left-leaning and promoting Obama. The next day (the 7th) gave way to a response by Eastwood, criticizing the criticizers. The response was then followed by a character attack on Eastwood.
It is astounding following the growth of a news story for a 72-hour time period. After the critique of Eastwood’s character, the arguments remained similar, only traveling from one news sources to the other. After the first few days of the story, the controversy seemed to die out and give way to other stories.
Personally I was fascinated by the life of the story, particularly how short lived it really was. Yes, it was talked about for a few weeks but the new sphere exploded in the first few days. It was amazing to see the transition of the story. It took political commentators about 24 hours to come up with their response to the ad. The other facet of this story that stood out to me was how this news story changed from an attack on Chrysler and the ad as being left leaning to a full on criticism of Clint Eastwood. The character attack seemed both unnecessary and unproductive to the argument.
Overall, following the story was enticing and eye opening to see how critical the media and individuals can be. I was one of the 111.3 million views who were watching the Super Bowl when this ad came on. Frankly I loved the ad. When I heard Clint Eastwood’s raspy voice I new right away that it was going to be a great ad. I was engaged for the entire two and a half minutes that the ad played, and I was inspired. It succeeded in giving me hope for our country. I saw absolutely no left-leaning bias or pro Obama message within the script. In contrast, I thought that the ad was implying that because it was halftime in America, we needed someone new to lead us up onto the field. Overall I thought it was an incredibly powerful message that most of the country could relate to. We all have suffered in some way or another in the past five years but the “Halftime in America” showed us that if Detroit could pull itself out of the gutter, then the country could do the same.
[1] Reuters. "Super Bowl, Madonna set new TV audience records | Reuters." Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News | Reuters.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2012
[2] Newsday. "How much does a Super Bowl commercial really cost?." Newsday - The Long Island and New York City News Source . N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.
[3] STEWART, JAMES B.. "How Clint Eastwood's Chrysler Ad Stirred Politics - Common Sense - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.
[4] "Clint Eastwoods Chrysler Ad Draws Divided Political Response ." Houston weather, traffic, and news | MyFoxHouston.com | FOX 26. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.
[5] Forbes. "The Winners and Losers of Super Bowl Commercials in 2012 - Forbes." Information for the World's Business Leaders - Forbes.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.
[6] Business Insider. "Super Bowl Ads 2012: Here Are The Winners And Losers - Business Insider." Featured Articles From The Business Insider. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.
[7] O'Reilly, Bill . "chryslers super bowl commercial nod obama?." O'Reilly Factor. Fox News, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2012.
[9] Kenneally, Tim. "Clint Eastwood speaks out on Super Bowl ad - Yahoo! News." Yahoo! News - Latest News & Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment