The Masters Tiger Woods Ad by Nike Golf hypocritically slammed

Also: the masters, tiger woods ad, nike golf ad, masters tiger woods, earl woods ad

Note: don't forget the Tiger Woods poll.

The Masters Tiger Woods Ad has been described in this space and on video at Zennie62 on TouTube as an American Classic and a work of genius...



The Masters Tiger Woods Ad by Nike Golf is being hypocritically slammed in the media. If you've not seen the controversial ad, which has now generated over 1 million views on YouTube as of this writing, here it is:



Some in the media, actually a number of people, have called the ad "tasteless", "rank", and other choice words and then harp on the commercialism of it all as AOL's National Columnist did in the first blog post on the Tiger WOods ad in this space.

What's funny about the blast against Nike and consumerism is the news websites and blogs that are leveling those claims have ads on their pages, thus making money from the online traffic the Tiger Woods-Nike-ad-related article draws.

In other words, the New Media critics charging that Nike's just trying to sell products are themselves helping other companies (and maybe Nike if the Nike ad's on their website) sell products and services. That's why I claim the Tiger Woods Ad is being hypocritically slammed. The News Media itself is part of the same consumerism some in News Media rail against.

HLN's Jane Valez-Mitchell,  who's Issues show I really love, was for me uncharacteristically annoying in her blast against the Nike ad, slamming the use of Tiger Woods' father's voice to "sell products" and screaming "consumerism" while at the same time promoting Geico auto insurance (which uses that awful commercial series that makes Cavemen a minority group), and day-trading software.

Why doesn't Jane have a problem with a Geico commercial that subversively makes fun of the concerns of American minorities who've been stereotyped in the media?  Is it because Geico sponsors her show?

The American News Media has been so drunk on the revenue from ad spending for print for so long that it has been under the impression that news produced was totally disconnected from ad sales and what was produced was free of corporate influence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Now that the ad money for newspapers and magazines has dramatically decreased and television has become a trend-follower's free-for-all, News Media journalists and editors are at a loss to figure out how to replenish lost ad dollars online, yet still act as of they're not part of the same corporate system that sponsors Tiger Woods, when they really are.

It's silly; it really is. If the News Media took off their blinders, dropped the ego, and realized that they need the same Nike company to buy ads, they'd see the whole Tiger Woods Nike Ad issue differently.

No, I'm not saying don't criticize the ad, but just stop mentioning how Nike is trying to sell product. It's really weird, silly, and hypocritical to have News Media people whining about that.

In other words, leave Tiger Woods alone, unless you're going to admit, as I do, that blogging about him generates traffic and ad revenue. In other words, be real!

Stay tuned.