Immigration and politics dominate ads during Super Bowl. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14772954



SAN FRANCISCO — Ever since President Trump moved to sharply limit immigration, Silicon Valley executives have tweeted, blogged and voiced their opposition.

Airbnb, one of the most aggressive corporate critics of Mr. Trump’s policy, took its opposition to the Super Bowl.

Airbnb created a Super Bowl advertisement showing a diverse group of people and text that read: “We believe no matter who you are, where you’re from, who you love or who you worship, we all belong. The world is more beautiful the more you accept.”

The Airbnb ad came just nine days after Mr. Trump signed an executive order to temporarily close America’s borders to all refugees and to citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries. The ad referred to the ban only obliquely so as not to run afoul of guidelines that say commercial time is not “for viewpoint or advocacy of controversial issues.”

The National Football League and Fox, the broadcaster of the game, maintain the right to approve ads, and some advertisers walked a tightrope to get ads with immigrants approved. Before the game started, Coca-Cola re-aired an ad from 2014 called “America the Beautiful,” which depicts Americans of different races and religions singing the song in a variety of languages. The building supply company 84 Lumber had to change an ad that showed a Spanish-speaking mother and daughter in front of a border wall.

In a memo to employees after the executive order, Airbnb’s chief executive, Brian Chesky, was more explicit about his opposition. “This is a policy I profoundly disagree with, and it is a direct obstacle to our mission at Airbnb,” Mr. Chesky wrote on Jan. 29. That weekend, the company began to provide free and subsidized temporary housing for people who had been affected by the immigration restrictions.

Two Airbnb officials who were not permitted to speak on the record said the company had not planned to advertise during the Super Bowl until executives heard there was still ad space left.

Mr. Chesky and the company’s two other founders, Joe Gebbia and Nathan Blecharczyk, worked with Jonathan Mildenhall, the company’s head of marketing, to put together the 30-second spot in three days, an effort that typically takes weeks or even months.

A cut of the ad was shown to a small group of employees on Thursday, and it was finished the next day and sent to the N.F.L. It aired right before the second quarter.

Airbnb was using the Super Bowl to highlight its commitment to provide short-term housing for 100,000 people in need over the next five years, including for refugees, victims of natural disasters and aid workers. The company has also committed to donate $4 million over the next four years to the International Rescue Committee, a group that helps displaced people around the world.

“Airbnb has been supporting refugees well before the current controversies,” said David Miliband, the organization’s president and chief executive.


In 2015, Airbnb provided travel credits to relief workers at Mercy Corps and the International Rescue Committee and gave matching donations to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In 2016, the company was a partner in the White House’s Call to Action to respond to the global refugee crisis.

“Airbnb’s mission to bring strangers together who help each other in various ways is core to our mission as well,” Mr. Miliband said. “So many Americans were refugees. It’s core to the identity and success of the country.”

The New York Times's
#14772957
I dismissed the political overtones from my mind. I wanted to watch football and see the creativity of new ads. This was probably one of the worst years ever. I found the commercials very disappointing in content and creativity. The most interesting part was seeing Alpha Romeo as a major sponsor.
#14772982
The extremely different reactions to Trump and Obama show clearly that Trump is far more divisive.


They show no such thing. The different reactions are based upon the amount of grief suffered by the losing party. This has a greater emotional impact on Liberals because they have had several decades to become convinced that their way was the correct way and everyone agreed with them. They have reverted to emotional outbursts as a means of dealing with the changes that are so out of their frame of reference. The divisiveness in the country has not changed, only the reactions to the existing divisiveness.
#14772988
One Degree wrote:They show no such thing. The different reactions are based upon the amount of grief suffered by the losing party. This has a greater emotional impact on Liberals because they have had several decades to become convinced that their way was the correct way and everyone agreed with them. They have reverted to emotional outbursts as a means of dealing with the changes that are so out of their frame of reference. The divisiveness in the country has not changed, only the reactions to the existing divisiveness.


Other than trying to insult "Liberals", this post seems to have no use.

I do not remember ads during previous Superbowls discussing Obama's policies.
#14772998
Other than trying to insult "Liberals", this post seems to have no use.

I am sorry you took it as an insult, when I thought I was showing why they had a reason to behave as they are.

I do not remember ads during previous Superbowls discussing Obama's policies.

Exactly. As I pointed out and you ignored, Conservatives had no need to feel the grief Liberals currently do. Obama was seen as a possibility of derailing the racist charges against Conservatives. Why would they be upset? It was a small step in the right direction from a Conservative view. It just did not work out that way. :hmm:
#14773003
One Degree wrote:I am sorry you took it as an insult, when I thought I was showing why they had a reason to behave as they are.


Why would I be insulted? I am not a liberal.

But no, it was not an explanation as to why people do things. It was armchair pop psychology where you attributed negative things to a group of people.

Exactly. As I pointed out and you ignored, Conservatives had no need to feel the grief Liberals currently do. Obama was seen as a possibility of derailing the racist charges against Conservatives. Why would they be upset? It was a small step in the right direction from a Conservative view. It just did not work out that way. :hmm:


Right, which was why Obama was not as divisive as Trump. Trump is clearly more divisive and polarising.
#14773006
But no, it was not an explanation as to why people do things. It was armchair pop psychology where you attributed negative things to a group of people.


I do not see emotions as negative unless they lead to negative actions. I understand their emotion, but believe their current actions are counter productive. It is not pop psychology to acknowledge their view of the world was dominate in the US for the last several decades and is now being challenged. These are simply facts.
I have no idea why you would view them as negative comments.
#14773018
I am not going to get into a debate about your crappy pop psychology or your liberal use of the word "fact".

It does not have anything to do with my claim that Trump is polarising and divisive.


:lol: :lol: Mossad disabled the quote function.
Please provide evidence of how the ads during the Super Bowl prove Trump is divisive and not a divisive act of Liberal owned advertisers?
#14773030
One Degree wrote::lol: :lol: Mossad disabled the quote function.
Please provide evidence of how the ads during the Super Bowl prove Trump is divisive and not a divisive act of Liberal owned advertisers?


Are you serious? The ads discussed in the OP are obviously a reaction to Trump's policies.
#14773036
Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you serious? The ads discussed in the OP are obviously a reaction to Trump's policies.


So what? They disagree. Divisiveness is determined by who is taking actions to divide the people. These are not Trump's actions and therefore can not be contributed to him. These actions promote divisiveness by those opposed to him. They took action, not him. His actions may be viewed as divisive but that has nothing to do with these actions whether they are in response or not. They must stand on their own for their impact.

There's nothing more progressive than supporting b[…]

https://twitter.com/TheBigDataStats/status/1399589[…]

A man from Oklahoma (United States) who travelled […]

That was weird

No, it won't. Only the Democrats will be hurt by […]