Why?
Yeah, i want to echo Hamlet’s question here.
Let’s focus, in particular, on the sports organizations themselves. Why is it shameful for the NFL (or anyone else) to accept the government’s money to promote patriotism and the military?
The government has a product it wants to sell here. Are you arguing that the NFL should hand over millions of dollars worth of advertising time and space to the government for free?
Imagine you owned a series of large advertising billboards in your town, and those billboards were a key source of your income. Now imagine a government representative turning up at your work one day and saying that the military would like to use those billboards to drive recruitment, and it is your patriotic duty as an American citizen to hand the advertising space over for free. What do you think your reaction might be?
Advertising appeals, in the majority of cases, to irrational emotions. Patriotism just happens to be one set of pretty irrational emotions, and advertisers of all sorts of products in America have appealed to patriotism in hundreds of different ways. Ever advertiser that flies an American flag in an ad, or who talks about American freedom, or some other similar bullshit, is appealing to your patriotism. Car makers are particularly good at it. People have been paying for patriotism for decades.
And the people who fall for these military promotions are the same people who think that drinking Coors Light will turn your life into one big frosty party train, or that using Axe deodorant will bring the women flocking, or that Papa John’s actually has better ingredients and better pizza.
As a veteran, I was beginning to get sick to my stomach from all of the “surprise reunions” being nationally televised. Like most other people, I thought the teams dreamed this up to increase patriotism and good-will from the fanbase in order to increase revenue. Whatever the source of money, it was getting old. All of my family reunions occurred either at an airport or at a squadron hangar when I flew home off of a ship on a helicopter. I didn’t give a damn who it happened in front of, and my wife was always kept in the loop of when I was returning. Do you know what patriotism is? It is taking care of veterans when they return home, both physically and mentally. It is taking care of their family when they don’t return home. It is electing leaders who understand the effects that their policies have on creating and defusing situations, and who act in the best interest of their country, rather than in the best interest of their election campaign. This country has failed all of these things miserably, but we can sure put on a great half-time show!
FWIW, the shame is not necessarily on the NFL’s part, since shame has nothing to do with making money.
The shame is the government buying fake patriotism. Authentic from-the-heart patriotism is one thing. But synthesizing it with cash?
It’s the difference between “grassroots” and “astroturf”. And astroturfing is inherently shameful.
BTW, if someone wishes to start an argument that even authentic patriotism is shameful (for their own specific ideological reasons), I’d suggest that’s a different thread.
Yeah, but I thought the military appreciation stuff would be reason #3, not #1 (and #2).
Exactly. I happen to believe, as a general principle, that patriotism is a thoughtless and unreflective emotion, but if it has any meaning at all, it should be in the substantial things like the ones you have mentioned here, not in the flag-waving bullshit that too often substitutes for meaningful action.
Well, i was responding explicitly to another poster who said: “The government is stupid for paying for patriotism, but worse are those that accept it. It’s shameful to do so.” Maybe you can have a talk with him about who is worse: the people who pay for astroturfed patriotism, or the people who take the money.
And if you believe that astroturfing is an inherently shameful enterprise, why would you exclude the NFL from your criticism, if they take money knowing that it is being used to lay the astroturf?
OP wasn’t about “this participant is more shameful than the other party”, so I’m not either, other than to note that it bothers me more that my government is stooping to play the same filthy game as commercial stealth taste-changers (like fake independent interest groups and other astroturfers).
In other words, I expect better of the government.
It gets a little old at the local NHL games. Before the game they bring our someone from the military to stand beside the singer during the National anthem. During a TV timeout in the middle of the game, they introduce someone else and play a video montage.
Still, the $53 million is just not accurate. That is a total marketing budget some unknown amount of which paid for these displays.
They run tv and radio ads, sponsor bike race teams, a high school all star football game, a NASCAR racer among other things.
Looking good to fans is always about sustaining or building revenue.
I don’t think that’s a fair analogy because who was competing with the DOD for that advertising space? Ever seen a football field size Coca-Cola flag? I havent, but I bet they could out spend the DOD for such a thing.
I notice the NCAA is not mentioned as having received money, yet they also have flyovers, ceremonies and displays of patriotism at their sporting events.
And if there’s no shame, why is the NFL giving back all the money?
Money for patriotism is shameful. I’m sure Republicans are upset that money is being exploited in that way.
The quote says that the wife is a cheerleader and a first lieutenant in the USMC. I did a web search; I’m not sure her hair meets Marine Corps regulations.
A rich guy with connections being in the military? The rarity of that is not a good thing for the country, but good for him for not being part of the problem.
No one rails against the NFL’s “anything for a buck” mentality more than me, but the Armed Forces have marketing budgets to spend and if I owned a NFL team and the military came up to me and said we would like to give you $100,000 to put on a show or two during your games, I’d be like, OK . . .? Why shouldn’t they profit from the governments stupidity when the same thing might be accomplished by the military calling NFL owners and saying “can you help us recruit?”.
When will we display disgust at multi-billion dollar TV networks that sell ad time to the armed forces for recruiting ads?
This stuff doesn’t bother me, assuming it’s not a total waste of money - and there’s no guarantee that anyone’s trying to figure out whether it is or isn’t, but I digress.
The reason this stuff doesn’t bother me is that what they’re doing is out in the open: they’re spending money to sponsor NASCAR and bike teams and the like, to make us all have a warm happy glow when we think of the military. But you know that’s what’s going on if you think about it for as much as a split second. There’s no duplicity here, beyond what’s inherent in advertising. Ditto when they run recruiting ads on TV.
These paid-patriotism events are different, in that most people didn’t know they were really commercials. One can argue that maybe we should have been smart enough to see through the sham, but the point was, it was a sham, it was intended to be a sham, and it worked as intended. We thought the NFL was giving the military a blow job, but it turned out we were watching the Department of Defense masturbate in public.
And the NFL…well, I don’t blame them as much, but still: they were taking money to actively participate in this deception. They should have sold more ads instead.
At Nats games they do this thing where they thank the troops, everyone is supposed to give some military guests a standing O. It’s sponsored by a military contractor, so it’s already tainted; I try to use the break to go to the can and get a beer.
People understand that what’s on a billboard is advertising. This seems more like the government paying you to put a giant flag on your house for Veteran’s Day, then you accept praise from your town about what a Great American you are for loving the troops so much.
I don’t know which side is “worse” but neither comes off looking real good.
Agreed.
You must be dissapointed on an hourly basis.
I don’t think this is a Republican/Democrat thing. Both parties do things that make me shake my head. This is one of them.
As far as my “rich guy with connections” comment… That isn’t exactly what I meant.
I meant that it was all part of an orchestrated show. You want to tell me that this guy is doing his patriotic duty and serving his country? Fine. I agree. Although we might question the politics of his particular assignment location, SOMEONE has to be in Korea. What I object to is the show that was orchestrated to tug at the heartstrings of the onlookers, who have no idea that these people are a lot closer to actors and actresses, all doing an elaborate performance in front of cameras. This particular guy is from a well-connected family. He’s not some random Kansas National Guardsman, and his “homecoming” was shot like a commercial.
I think most people think “coming home from overseas” means someone has survived active duty in a hostile environment, like Afghanistan. Not Korea, Japan or Germany. I am not criticizing anyone who happens to be serving overseas for the US and doesn’t have to dodge RPG’s daily… I AM criticizing this particular “homecoming”.
I was not previously aware of this, but am neither shocked nor outraged.
If you think about it, a military that relies on volunteers is going to need to spend money on advertising, promotions, recruiters, etc. NFL games are hugely popular in the US, so it makes sense for the military PR departments to spend some of that advertising money on these events which draw millions of people from across the country. There are also recruitment campaigns in magazines, television commercials, billboards, etc, and no one is critical of that.
I think people just feel deceived because they’re not purely patriotic displays, but if you think about it, it doesn’t make sense that it would be. It’s all just advertising. Mountains out of molehills IMHO.
I’ve occasionally noticed when politicians put (or perhaps it would be better to say they expect others to put) love of money ahead of love of country. I’ve heard it argued, mainly by Republicans, that we can’t raise taxes on the wealthy or else they’ll just move to some other country where they can keep a larger share of their profits. What would you call that, except putting money ahead of patriotism?
With that in mind, I’d be curious to hear the critics of this policy explain a bit more about specifically why the object to it. Are they worried that it damages the patriotic brand, or is it just a waste of money? Despite Roger Goddell saying that teams will return the money, I don’t hear the politicians criticizing any of the teams that received it. Private companies saw a chance to turn a profit, now that’s patriotism!
To be fair to McCain, he’s someone else who served in the military despite having the connections to probably avoid it.
Once again, as a veteran, I understand that the DOD has to advertise in order to recruit talent. Someone upthread said that the military is not in competition with anyone else. That is incorrect. The DOD is in competition with every employer that hires unskilled labor, as well as community colleges and vocational schools. Why should I join the military if I can go to a vocational school, learn a skill, and make a pretty good salary here at home? These “paid for patriotism” events are designed to tug at the heartstrings of everyone, but I don’t want people to join because they are treated great when they return. Those people make the worst recruits.