Just recently, Bill O’Reilly and thousands of his “Factor” viewers pressured Pepsi-Cola into pulling ads featuring hip-hop artist Ludacris. O’Reilly passionately stated that the lewd rapper, and, by association, Pepsi, were “subverting the values of the United States,” — an accusation which Pepsi promptly responded to by canceling the ad campaign, stating, “We don’t think we knew the extent to which his material was sexually explicit.”
While O’Reilly, his viewers and Pepsi, may be well intended, why the sudden urgency and moral accountability? Where was the public outcry on Super Bowl Sunday 2001, when Pepsi ran a Britney Spears ad that concluded with the not-so-subtle implication that she’d given Bob Dole and his dog an erection? It’s hard to imagine that Pepsi-Cola could’ve been ignorant to that ad’s sexually explicit nature.
Furthermore, why hasn’t O’Reilly challenged Pepsi’s continued association with the young vixen, who recently told People magazine, “Smoking, drinking, sex — why is it such a big deal for me?” It’s a big deal, Britney, because at 20 years old, as you yourself admitted, you’re no longer a girl, but you’re not yet a woman. And as Bill O’Reilly himself proclaimed, in his condemnation of Ludacris, “Entertainers that encourage Americans to commit illegal acts are not acceptable in my living room.”
The double standard that applies to Britney apparently carries over to other soft-drink endorsers. Coca-Cola’s most recent ad campaign features Chazz Palminteri as an intimidating Mafioso-type who rewards the curiosity of nosy strangers by granting them a yummy Vanilla Coke rather than breaking their knees with a lead pipe. Unlike the ‘gangsta’ lifestyle associated with Ludacris, the ‘gangster’ lifestyle implied in this commercial is scarcely controversial. Not in a society that glamorizes the true and fictional lives of John Gotti, Whitey Bulger, Vito Corleone and Tony Soprano.
It would be a stretch to say that “The Factor’s” reaction and Pepsi’s subsequent response was racially motivated. But how did the proposed Ludacris endorsement fall so far short of such low acceptable standards? Could it be that white America is just a tad bit wary of boisterous black men like Ludacris?
7-Up has not drawn such rage from the masses. Their goofy black spokesman, Godfrey, wears a sweater vest and tie. According to the company’s website, he’s continuously trying to find “new, innovative ways to increase brand exposure.” These efforts have included pulling his pants down and whipping it out on city sidewalks, as well as visiting prison, where casual jokes are implied about the fun that inmates will have when Godfrey drops the soda can, if ya know what I mean . Such behavior by Ludacris would be unthinkable, but the non-threatening Godfrey is as harmless as a good-natured minstrel boy chewing on a watermelon.
Is “subverting the values of the United States” the real issue at hand? And if so, do those values include aroused ex-senators, underage drinkers, mobsters, Uncle Tom company men exposing themselves and prison rapists? Or is the crusade’s true mission simply to protect our sodas, televisions and daughters from thugs with gold teeth and corn rows?