Censored Super Bowl Ads and Media Integrity in the Age of Trump

This advertisement was meant to air at last night’s Super Bowl:

The ad, created by 84 Lumber, depicts a mother and her young daughter traveling north, sometimes by truck, sometimes by train, sometimes on foot. On the way, the daughter picks up scraps of colored cloth or plastic she finds, weaving them into an American flag. At times we see montages of men at work, cutting and sawing and building something out of wood. Finally, the mother and her daughter are confronted by a wall, standing twenty feet tall and extending in either direction. On the brink of despair, they discover something around the corner—a massive door through the wall. This is what the builders had been constructing. As the pair walk through, faces alight, the words “The Will to Succeed Is Always Welcome Here” appear on the screen.

What happened? Why didn’t it air? According to Vanity Fair:

When 84 Lumber set about making an ad for the Super Bowl, the company didn’t expect that their full commercial wouldn’t make it to air. But Fox forced the Pennsylvania-owned company to cut the ending of the spot, which follows a mother and daughter on a vague “journey north.” The ending was then supposed to be available on 84 Lumber’s website, which, shortly after the first part of the commercial aired on Fox, crashed as curious Super Bowl viewers rushed to find out what happened next.

Why was the ad censored? This appears to be the reason:

Fox declined to comment on the censored ad, but the network’s advertising guidelines prevent expressions of “viewpoint or advocacy of controversial issues.”

I have seen concerns that Lumber 84 was profiteering off of the plight of immigrants, using the controversy they knew the spot would bring to gain attention to their company, and the company’s response to a question about undocumented immigration is concerning. Regardless of the company’s motivations, it is worth noting that it was Fox, the network Trump holds up as an example of how media should cover his presidency, that deemed this advertisement too controversial for TV.

This is not direct government censorship, no. However, censorship does not have to stem from explicit government dictate for it to be concerning—or for the government to be involved in some capacity. Censorship is not always explicit or directly stated—and no, I’m not suggesting a conspiracy theory.

Trump appears to in fact believe that it is part of his job as president to exert some form of control over the media. According to Vox:

In his first meeting with national news outlets, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said that accountability would be a “two-way street,” and the White House would hold the press accountable.

No, sir, that is not how the presidency works. It is not how the First Amendment works. Because of the immense power of the presidency, it is strictly not allowed to exert control over the media.

Trump has made a practice of scolding media for being “mean” to him not only during his campaign, but also during his presidency. He even spent more time lambasting the media than he did staying on topic during his black history month address.

Trump has made no secret that he favors Fox. In fact, it tends to be the standard he presents the other networks—be nice to me, like the people at Fox. A network like Fox, then, would be extremely aware of how the Trump might respond to the airing of an ad that appears to take direct aim at one of his signature proposals—his wall.

It is not normal to have a president this obsessed with his media coverage. It is not normal for a president to publicly (and privately) scold the media when he doesn’t like their coverage of his presidency or his actions. But this president does all of this.

As we enter the next four years we need to be painfully aware of the dampening effect Trump’s constant berating of the media may have on their coverage and what they are willing to say. The concern here—and going forward—is not direct censorship by Trump so much as self-censorship by the news media in an effort to appease Trump. The latter is harder (if not impossible) for the courts to stop, and thus arguably more dangerous.

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing!