Chrysler Super Bowl Ad Scrubs Pro-Union Wisconsin Rally Signs (VIDEO)

Chrysler's "Half Time in America" Super Bowl ad touts economic recovery in Detroit, but scrubs recognition for union activists in Wisconsin.

The highly-praised spot, which features Oscar-winner Clint Eastwood narrating over a collage of images that includes broken towns and factory workers, includes a short clip from videographer Matthew Wisniewski's montage of the protests over a budget repair bill in Madison, Wisconsin last February. The original clip that Chrysler used from Wisniewski's video (see it here at 2:17) features protestors marching in front of the capitol building, holding signs made by Madison Teachers Inc. union.

As first pointed out by The Nation, the footage in the Chrysler ad (found at :50) has been scrubbed of the pro-union messages on the signs. On one, "Care About Educators Like They Care for Your Child" has been replaced by a picture of an alarm clock.

In October, Chrysler reached an agreement with the United Auto Workers on a contract that promised to add 2,100 jobs in America but paid out a smaller bonus than contracts agreed to by competitors Ford and General Motors.

Chrysler hasn't responded to a request for comment.

Here are the two videos:

Wisconsin "Budget Repair Bill" Protest from Matt Wisniewski on Vimeo.

Comments

[chrzaj]

09:10 PM on 02/06/2012

Well, the company probably didn't want to advertise for the union. It's that simple. Why would a company want to advertise for another corporation? That's what unions have become: another way to take money out of the hands of the worker. Only about 10% of American employees are unionized (a generous estimate). In a union these days, the guys at the top get all of the money and unions are hardly helpful to employees. Pensions are disappearing, dues are increasing and employees are being offered less and less options for things like healthcare and retirement. Frankly, unions like to blame this on whatever industry they are a part of but it is more likely it's the union that is not living up to their own promises.

Unions came about in the US when workers had less rights and protections and needed another governing body to keep them out of harms way. Today there are many laws and standards protecting employees. Unions are no longer necessary in most industries.

I am not anti-union, I just know a Trojan horse when I see it. I've worked for a company where one of my organization's campuses was union and the other wasn't. The union environment had lower employee satisfaction, productivity, lacked cross-departmental communication, and lower quality ratings. So...the majority of the time I don't believe they exist for the best interest of the employee as they should.

Eastwood is sweet.

Wait, the Super Bowl was on last night?!

[b6665965]

02:43 AM on 02/08/2012

"I am not anti-union­"

Uh -- yes, you are anti union. The correct response would be to scold unions for selling out and not being nearly radical enough while workers rights are being dismantled as business turns this country into a third world wage state. What happened to abolition of the wage system?

[b6665965]

02:49 AM on 02/08/2012

Here union membership vs. top 1% income, by the way:

http://i.imgur.com/Z03zE.png

- which directly translates into real wage growth, and generally the last 40 years of documented American decline. So, sorry I don't buy the rhetoric.

[captspock]

07:59 PM on 02/06/2012

I just wish they learned a lesson and stop producing gas guzzling SUV's.

[Martha Fair]

07:18 PM on 02/06/2012

Ask not what your country can do for you...ask what your country can do for a corporation. LOL

[dbishop76]

06:09 PM on 02/06/2012

So, when you p i s s of Karl Rove and you p i s s off The Nation with the same ad, you probably did something right.

[Yellowbird]

05:38 PM on 02/06/2012

I want to know why all the picket signs in the commercial had the UNION LOGO and UNION MESSAGES removed.

Also, it's NOT TRUE we all came together to save Chrystler. the Republicans held STAUNCHLY AGAINST the saving of this company.

[Mr Bobo]

05:05 PM on 02/06/2012

This is much ado about nothing. The point of the ad was to be pro-American. The image was meant to elicit an emotion without endorsing a particular political agenda. I'm sure they had any number of images they could have chosen and would have blurred whatever was on the signs, regardless of the cause. I blur stuff all the time for the various shows I work on, no big deal.

[b6665965]

02:52 AM on 02/08/2012

Eliciting "pro-American" as you call it (I call it something different) emotion is very definition of "a particular political agenda"

[Mr Bobo]

12:56 PM on 02/08/2012

Okay, I'll bite. What did you read into the general message of this ad from an American automobile manufacturer trying to sell cars? Within the contest of the article, of course.

[David Charin]

12:38 PM on 02/13/2012

the problem is that such 'pro american' ads often whitewash our own problems, which are problems that NEED solutions and soon. We cant just ignore the problems facing our country. We have to actually do something. Laissez faire laziness isn't going to make these problems go away, it isnt going to undo the recession, and it isnt going to maintain world peace.

[Ladder 1]

04:54 PM on 02/06/2012

The left is sooo funny;

This was a great ad about American Spirit Thats it.

What the left continues to miss and FAIL at is this was done by Dodge/Chyrsler. Thats right folks! Corporate America. The 1%ers. You know????? the ones you have been Nashing your teeth at for how long now???? Dodge/Chrysler Also SHUT DOWN its operations in Detroit to only open NON UN ION shops in Mexico.


But once again we have the left looking at this ad as THEIR battle cry against republicans like Micheal Moore was behind its creation. Priceless!

[dbishop76]

06:09 PM on 02/06/2012

You DO realize the right is criticizing it too?

[Ladder 1]

09:26 PM on 02/06/2012

The LEFT isn't criticizing it...they are praising it. Funny to think after their whole occupy movement don't you think??????

[gschear]

04:21 PM on 02/06/2012

Here is the thing.
This ad was cleverly put together to mean all things to everyone.
Pro Obama people could see it as a halftime call to suck it up, get out there, and stay in for the win.
Republicans could see it as a halftime call to come from behind and "take bake the title"
Everybody buys cars and they are not going to alienate any potential customers...but they do owe this Administration and the taxpayers of America their very existence.

[Chris1962]

05:20 PM on 02/06/2012

>>>but they do owe this Administra­tion and the taxpayers of America their very existence. >>> Err, Bush did the auto bailouts.

[popdukes1]

09:28 PM on 02/06/2012

Errr, Bush approved an inadequate 17 billion in Dec 2008 with no strings attached. Obama added another 85 billion in 2009 with strings attached. You surely remember all the jokes that GM now stood for "Government Motors" as Obama got ownership as collateral. No one is laughing anymore. Bush did TARP, bailing out the Banks who created the whole mess after deregulation gave them a license to steal from usall.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/291776/20120202/obama-romney-poll-auto-bailout-gm-chrysler.htm

[Patriot86]

04:10 PM on 02/06/2012

So what this was supposed to be about America coming back...no need for politics.

[kgb999]

04:39 PM on 02/06/2012

That advertisement was selling the *image* which was created by the protesters. Your premise is that they should be able to sell the basic idea of protests (a political act) but to erase any parts of the image that don't suit their commercial objectives?

It seems like by using a person's image and likeness in a commercial endeavor, and superimposing a marketing image of their choice over that likeness, they create the illusion that the person is endorsing an idea that they were not promoting at all. This seems to take it a step beyond fair-use utilization of footage from a public event into unauthorized and uncompensated commercial use of a specific likeness to produce an unauthorized endorsement of an idea or theme.

If the person who's likeness was thus utilized were to make an issue of it, I'll bet Chrysler is in a reasonably actionable position.

[Patriot86]

10:21 AM on 02/07/2012

Oh please such nonsense...public record and it shows Americans fighting back period...great ad and very moving.

[Ginger23]

04:09 PM on 02/06/2012

WEAC had a lovely ad one our local station in Wisconsin. I thought I was going to cry.

[Eidolas]

04:45 PM on 02/07/2012

Now that would have been funny.

[JoanE]

03:45 PM on 02/06/2012

This is a fine message from Clint, consistent with the theme of his cinematic gem Gran Torino, which he shot in Detroit.

[oscartucker]

03:27 PM on 02/06/2012

Were there protests outside the arena yesterday during the game? I had thought that there might be as large a presence as there was last week. Does anyone know? NBC certainly did not show any of it if there was.

[Tikiman]

03:09 PM on 02/06/2012

It was an ad, nothing more, nothing less, meant to make us all feel patriotic so we'll go out and by their cars. People are reading too much into this. I thought Clint sold out.

[oscartucker]

03:21 PM on 02/06/2012

If it "was an ad", why did you think "Clint sold out" when actors and actresses and "stars" were in most of the "ads", working and getting paid?????

****People are reading too much into this. I thought Clint sold out. ****
Are you "reading too much into this", also????

[Tikiman]

04:12 PM on 02/06/2012

Because he is a huge star and director and doesn't need the money. I just think too many people think it was a political statement and not what it was, an ad for cars.

[Patriot86]

04:11 PM on 02/06/2012

I really enjoyed the 2012 Chevy ad too...pretty funny stuff...Ford is furious. hehe.

[hesperiadan760]

04:38 PM on 02/06/2012

I thought the Chevy ad was the best.

[Ladder 1]

04:43 PM on 02/06/2012

Ford...the only one to not take tax payers money.

[Mary Karius]

03:02 PM on 02/06/2012

what did they replace it with that is anti-Union?

[drumz]

03:09 PM on 02/06/2012

Um, removing it was anti-union.

[Mary Karius]

03:20 PM on 02/06/2012

totally disagree, when we all see that image, we all know what it is and what it stands for...the fight against Walker and his stance on Unions. Whomever is looking for a fight over those signs is missing the point entirely. Like to fight just to?

[Patriot86]

04:12 PM on 02/06/2012

No, I really don't think so...I think it was just supposed to be pro-America...look at the Rove whiner complaining about it.

[Myoho Mod]

02:57 PM on 02/06/2012

Clint is Republican which makes this ad more powerful. Hollywood Rublicans understand what happens when you go cheap not hire union workers. that is all