२३ जानेवारी, २०११
Why would a mainstream news outlet do a story based on the assertion by a private company that its Super Bowl ad got rejected?
The network refuses to comment on claims it has rejected an ad, so all you've got is a company with an immense self-interest in lying about it. You know, I'm not even going to link to the news website I'm talking about, because the answer to the question in the post title is that the news site is whoring for traffic. The private company would like to promote its product without forking out the millions needed to buy air time on the Super Bowl, and the news site would like to be the go-to place for ad, which isn't clever enough to go viral without the boost of the banned-from-the-Super-Bowl claim. Moreover, the product is shoddy and not worth talking about. Don't be a sucker.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२६ टिप्पण्या:
Link?
Don't be a sucker.
Thank you for making up my mind for me.
But other than that, it's all good.
mainstream news is now about reporting on the prediction about the reporting.
Actual news? Please. They're proud to say that in their sphere they don't sully themselves with such things.
You should at least name the news outlet in question.
OK Althouse, how much did they pay you for that?
It was from an organization that killed dogs and dumped them into trash dumpsters just before Ron Mexico was caught dog fighting;
The alias of the NFL quarterback was used to protect the guilty.
WV: fiathwat-obscene mocking of Eagle QB
This wouldn't be the FOX story about the website that claims (supposedly as a joke) that the Christian Messiah is contemptuous of the current chief executive of the USA, would it?
Word verification: thydrt.
Late one recent night I saw a commercial on a cable channel for this vacuum device that promises to improve a man's sexual performance. It was easy to laugh at such a ridiculous thing, except when the spokesman claimed that Medicare and private insurance companies will pay for the device. What a waste of money!
Peter
Or was this the ad protesting against AshleyJefferson.com, the horrible awful web site that facilitates adulterous fornication with hot chicks without getting caught?
Because I thought the conservative message of that ad (do NOT visit DolleyMadison.com, where sinning is made easy and uncomplicated) seemed like great advice and a real consumer protection.
Perhaps it was the ad for Doritos and Pepsi (poking fun at Catholics, who are notorious for not murdering people that poke fun at them) that Faux Noise covered this morning.
Prof. A, even your "don't be a sucker" taunt will drive some people (suckers) to do the research to find it.
But you knew that, right? ;)
Crimso said...
Perhaps it was the ad for Doritos and Pepsi (poking fun at Catholics, who are notorious for not murdering people that poke fun at them) that Faux Noise covered this morning.
In comparison to the Moslems, I presume?
I don't comment here a lot, edutcher, but I hope you have seen enough to know I'm sarcastically using "Faux Noise." And you're not being presumptuous.
I somehow doubt we'll see the usual suspects on the left that love the term "know-nothing" use it correctly for once in reference to this ad. (For the record, I was raised Catholic, but consider myself an agnostic).
ironrailsironweights said...
Late one recent night I saw a commercial on a cable channel for this vacuum device that promises to improve a man's sexual performance.
Do you have a link for that?
Crimso said...
I don't comment here a lot, edutcher, but I hope you have seen enough to know I'm sarcastically using "Faux Noise." And you're not being presumptuous.
I somehow doubt we'll see the usual suspects on the left that love the term "know-nothing" use it correctly for once in reference to this ad. (For the record, I was raised Catholic, but consider myself an agnostic).
No sweat.
I am not the best Catholic in the world, by any means, but I can be a little trigger-happy when I hear someone take what looks like a shot at the Church.
ironrailsironweights: "What a waste of money!
What if they sell a little toupee accessory for it?
I think that device works. It cures the man's sexual problem by completely eliminating the need for his wife's cooperation.
"I am not the best Catholic in the world, by any means, but I can be a little trigger-happy when I hear someone take what looks like a shot at the Church."
I actually remember it fondly, and have discovered that the church I went to as a child (late 60's/early 70's) doesn't seem to exist anymore. When I've felt the need to at least appear religious (a feeling which never lasts), I've tried Catholic, but they all seem now to be just imitations of the many Protestant services I've been to. Not nearly as ritualistic as it was, and what should a religion fundamentally be in worship but ritualistic?
When I've felt the need to at least appear religious (a feeling which never lasts), I've tried Catholic, but they all seem now to be just imitations of the many Protestant services I've been to. Not nearly as ritualistic as it was, and what should a religion fundamentally be in worship but ritualistic?
Some people in your situation have found what they're looking for in Eastern Orthodox churches.
Peter
The Pepsi/Doritos commercial doesn't seem to fit the loose description offered by Althouse in this post.
Hey other Peter, did you see the music video I recommended for you the other day?
Ah, I'm pretty sure I know the ad of which Althouse speaks.
Private company is the clue. Neither PETA nor the satirical website are appropriately described as private companies.
This company has a history of offering to purchase naming rights to venues who, predictably, reject their offer.
I have no idea what ad, product, or company is being referenced in this post.
So I guess I'm just supposed to take the blogger's word for it...
Unlikely.
(Even when the blogger is, as in this case, my favorite blogger.)
Freeman, send me an email and I'll fill you in.
Got it. Thanks, Peter!
The term "media whores" is no longer just a metaphor.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा