Wednesday, February 09, 2005
So, by their logic, I guess they also should have pulled the ad they did run of airport travelers paying tribute to Americans serving in uniform, since it offended New York Times columnist Paul Krugman (from an exchange on Hardball):
KRUGMAN: We all support the troops. But this is exploitation. And it's part of the basic lack of seriousness about a lot of what's going on in this country.
MATTHEWS: Could it be that Anheuser-Busch was rendering a public service by creating a stirring portrait of what might have happened?
KRUGMAN: Oh, come on.
MATTHEWS: Those were real soldiers, by the way.
KRUGMAN: Yes. Nonetheless, it's business. You don't spend money— if you really wanted to support the troops, you would just do it without making it clear that this was from a beer company.
Plus, NYT reporter Stuart Elliott didn't think much of it, calling it: "[a] gauzy valentine to American troops, which ended with the Anheuser-Busch corporate logo superimposed on screen, was touching, but some viewers may have wondered whether "Busch" had been misspelled." (Via Michelle Malkin)
A-B! Offending the FCC is one thing, but offending Paul Krugman and the New York Times is another. What were you thinking!
I would have liked to have seen the wardrobe malfunction parody, but I'll settle for offending Paul Krugman and the New York Times.
And what in the hell, may I ask, is wrong with a "gauzy Valentine to the troops"? Except that maybe it's incomplete without the chocolates, champagne, fuzzy slippers, and back rubs that they all deserve. For eternity.