An editorial quandary: What do you think?

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Jan 04, 2011

Last week we faced an interesting editorial decision. I’d be interested to know whether Catholic Culture readers would agree with the way we resolved the question.

The question, in a nutshell, was whether or not we should publicize a very offensive video that might appear as an ad during the Super Bowl.

The background: Pepsi and Doritos are sponsoring a competition to design an ad that will appear during the Super Bowl broadcast. The winner will receive a huge cash prize, as well as the satisfaction of seeing his work on a national TV broadcast.

Last week, orthodox Catholic groups began sounding the alarm. One of the videos entered in this competition was a vile parody of the Holy Eucharist. In the proposed ad, a priest worried about declining attendance struck on a novel idea. The video showed people coming forward in church, as for communion, and happily receiving Pepsi and Doritos.

Outraged by this mockery of the Blessed Sacrament, Catholic groups begin circulating petitions, asking people to call Pepsi officials and demand that the corporation disavow this disgusting video. A few Catholic Culture supporters, receiving these alarms, suggested that we should call attention to the cause.

Here are the problems, as I saw them:

• If Pepsi broadcast such a grossly sacrilegious ad, that would certainly be news, and cause for protests. But Pepsi had not created, endorsed, promoted, or broadcast this ad. It was one of many entries—about 5,600, as it turns out—in an open competition. Pepsi had provided web space for all the entrants in the competition, and this offensive video could be viewed on that site. One might question the wisdom of providing web space without filtering out objectionable material, but that was the sum total of the Pepsi/Dorito involvement.
• The creators of the video, Media Wave Video Productions, had shown an appalling lack of respect for the Eucharist. But it is not surprising, in early 21st-century America, that some creative artists entertain blasphemous ideas. A full-fledged campaign against their work would draw public attention to them; did we really want to do that?
• The rules of the contest called for Pepsi to choose 100 finalists from all the entries that had been submitted. If this offensive video, entitled “Feed Your Flock,” drew extra public attention because of Catholic protests, there might be a risk that the campaign would actually increase the likelihood that it would appear among the finalists.
• If we asked people to protest the video, we would have to explain. And in explaining, we would have to point people toward the offensive video. But we didn’t want people to view the video; it was disgusting. (You’ll notice that this blog entry does not include a direct link to the video. It’s out there, but I’m not going to help you find it.)

After weighing the issue, we decided not to call attention to the issue. We agreed that if “Feed Your Flock” was among the finalists in the Pepsi contest, we would re-assess our position.

Fortunately, when the finalists were chosen this week, the offensive video was not on the list. With the benefit of hindsight, our editorial decision looks good. This unhappy episode never rose to the level of a legitimate news story.

But did we make the right call? That isn’t entirely clear to me.

On one hand, the Catholic outrage against this video undoubtedly gave it more publicity. Media Wave Video Productions boasted, in a January 4 press release, that over 100,000 viewers had seen the video; among all the 5,600 entries in the Pepsi contest, it ranked in the top 10 in terms of viewers. Much of that traffic was surely driven by the controversy. It might have been better to ignore the outrage.

On the other hand, we don’t know what Pepsi executives might have done, if they had not been alerted to the depth of Catholic outrage provoked by this proposed ad. Might they have chosen “Feed Your Flock” among the finalists? Might they even have considered broadcasting it? We don’t know. Today Pepsi executives are assuring concerned Catholics that the video was never under active consideration as an ad. But I, for one, am grateful to anyone who might have helped Pepsi reach that decision.

Meanwhile the creators of the offensive video are, quite predictably, insisting that they meant no offense. The man who came up with the idea for the ad—described in the press release as a “devout Catholic” in spite of the clear evidence to the contrary—offers this lame explanation: “The pastor did not consecrate the Doritos and Pepsi—therefore it is not the Eucharist.”

No, it is not the Eucharist. We all knew that. It is a mockery of the Eucharist. Thank God—and perhaps Pepsi, and probably the many Catholics who signed petitions and called in protests—on Super Bowl Sunday, in this particular instance, our Eucharistic Lord will not be mocked.

Now that you have the whole story, I’d be interested in reactions from Catholic Culture readers. Did we make the right editorial decision?