Provocative Russia Today ads rejected at US airports *pics*

Status
Not open for further replies.
#15
They're mostly very good ads. I can see how these could be deemed offensive taken under the wrong context though.

On the other hand, that polar bear/alien one is just plain weird.
 
#17
Provocative? Juvenile and laugh worthy maybe. I've seen sixth graders come up with better stuff..."hey, let's put obama and a terrorist together, because we're straight questioning shit"

Offensive? Why would anyone want to censor these? Put em up everywhere so people can laugh at ham handed attempts at policial statement. The censored obama one is hilarious though...why do black bars make it better?
 
#19
The only truly provocative one is the first, since it's based on the rather sketchy premise of equating the nuclear threat to the world of the Obama administration with that of the current regime in Iran. Still, I can't see any good reason for the others to be censored or rejected; quite the overreaction.
 
#20
elrechazao said:
Provocative? Juvenile and laugh worthy maybe. I've seen sixth graders come up with better stuff..."hey, let's put obama and a terrorist together, because we're straight questioning shit"

Offensive? Why would anyone want to censor these? Put em up everywhere so people can laugh at ham handed attempts at policial statement.
You were like this in the sixth grade? My version of these in the sixth grade would have been a red poster with white text saying "BUY RUSSIA TODAY".

:(
 
#24



Okay, so I don't understand why everybody is saying this one is clever. It's the most generic, most famous (everybody seen it already), and the less provocative of the ads.

It's like they could put a pen and a sword instead. It's just so dull and already done before. The one with Ahmadinejad and Obama is way most interesting for a pure provocative on both, political and ideological plans.
 
#25
UnluckyKate said:



Okay, so I don't understand why everybody is saying this one is clever. It's the most generic, most famous (everybody seen it already), and the less provocative of the ads.

It's like they could put a pen and a sword instead. It's just so dull and already done before. The one with Ahmadinejad and Obama is way most interesting for a pure provocative on both, political and ideological plans.
It's especially ironic given Russia's wholesale campaign of terror against journalists.
 

shintoki

sparkle this bitch
#26
Outside of the Police Officer...and Football player? They are pretty well done. It's not like they really are provocative either. In the sense that we haven't seen it a dozen times prior.

The censored version is hilarious:lol
 
#31
There is the Obama/Ahmadinejad poster up on a billboard a few minutes away from where i live, i kept wondering who RT.news were whenever i looked at it, now i know. Not exactly deep, but everytime i walk past it with someone we seem to talk about it, so i guess it is rather effective.
 
#34
elrechazao said:
Provocative? Juvenile and laugh worthy maybe. I've seen sixth graders come up with better stuff..."hey, let's put obama and a terrorist together, because we're straight questioning shit"

Offensive? Why would anyone want to censor these? Put em up everywhere so people can laugh at ham handed attempts at policial statement. The censored obama one is hilarious though...why do black bars make it better?
The fact that you're calling Ahmadinejad a terrorist shows how much you know on the subject and helps to form an opinion on your post as a whole.
 
#35
add me to the AK/Camera sentiments. the rest is just an attempt to get hits. the terrorist/soldier one is pretty good as well.

the Obama/whoever is just an attack on Obama. I dont pay much attention to the news, but I never heard about Obama threatening nuclear attacks, but I have heard Russia doing so

the police/skinhead is just stupid. there may be some bad cops out there, but I'd take the cops side every time if he was put up with a skinhead

the climate change is also fucking stupid considering a majority of the scientific community agrees the evidence is pretty legit
 
#36
ILikeFeet said:
the Obama/whoever is just an attack on Obama. I dont pay much attention to the news, but I never heard about Obama threatening nuclear attacks, but I have heard Russia doing so
I don't think it's an attack on Obama so much as Obama is the leader of the U.S. so if you are going to use a person to represent the U.S. in an ad it would be him. It's more an attack on the U.S. than Obama. They are saying we as a country have the largest nuclear arsenal and they think they are being clever by asking of the two countries shown which one poses the greatest threat of launching a nuclear attack. The stable country with nothing to gain from starting a nuclear holocaust or the country whose figurehead repeatedly says a certain other neighboring country should be wiped off the face of the planet.

edit: and ffr "whoever" is Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
 
#38
fortified_concept said:
The fact that you're calling Ahmadinejad a terrorist shows how much you know on the subject and helps to form an opinion on your post as a whole.
The fact that you think I was referencing ahmadinejad in that quote shows that you are excellent at jumping to conclusions. That was a "quote" from my mythical 6th graders, not from the russian news outlet. "The current us president" + terrorist/hitler/stalin/dictator/cobra commander is about as original and "controversial" as women showing their calves at the beach.

Mecha_Infantry said:
Obama represents USA...USA hold a large stock of nuclear weapons, if a war pops off....Now ask yourself the question in the picture. Maybe you should watch the news more

It seems the Americans in the thread are taken this personally because it's coming from Russia..:lol
Not really. It's just amusing coming from state owned russian media, considering russia's laughable record in these areas.
 
#39
ILikeFeet said:
the Obama/whoever is just an attack on Obama. I dont pay much attention to the news, but I never heard about Obama threatening nuclear attacks, but I have heard Russia doing so
Obama represents USA...USA hold a large stock of nuclear weapons, if a war pops off....Now ask yourself the question in the picture. Maybe you should watch the news more

It seems the Americans in the thread are taken this personally because it's coming from Russia..:lol
 
#41
Dali said:
The country that has used nuclear weapons before and could defend itself after using them or the country that will be wiped off the face of the planet if they ever use them.
There, I changed it a bit. Not that it means anything, imo any country that uses nuclear weapons again will face global isolation for many years to come -and that's the best case scenario- so the possibility of that happening is almost nonexistent. Like I said they're thought provoking ads and could be debated for hours. I have an opinion on each question but even if I disagree I'm just glad they're asking them.
 
#42
Meus Renaissance said:
Why would be they rejected? You know "Freedom of Speech" and all. Something is wrong when you have Glenn Beck and Fox News on air and these are banned
That's like asking "why would Cosmopolitan reject a print version of those Burger King 'I am man' commercials".
 
#43
The ads are just another version of blaming the west for everything that is wrong in this world imo. In context that this is by a russian news station the message is very clear and obviously biased.
 

jorma

is now taking requests
#45
elrechazao said:
The fact that you think I was referencing ahmadinejad in that quote shows that you are excellent at jumping to conclusions. That was a "quote" from my mythical 6th graders, not from the russian news outlet. "The current us president" + terrorist/hitler/stalin/dictator/cobra commander is about as original and "controversial" as women showing their calves at the beach.
You made more sense when you thought that the picture of Ahmadinejad was a picture of a random terrorist. This backpedal is just akward.
 
#47
fortified_concept said:
There, I changed it a bit. Not that it means anything, imo any country that uses nuclear weapons again will face global isolation for many years to come -and that's the best case scenario- so the possibility of that happening is almost nonexistent. Like I said they're thought provoking ads and could be debated for hours. I have an opinion on each question but even if I disagree I'm just glad they're asking them.
That reason alone is why Iran would be more dangerous with nukes. You think they are stupid enough to take credit for a nuke attack? The more likely scenario would be a "stolen" nuke making it's way into the hands of an organization with the same anti-Israel agenda.
 
#48
jorma said:
You made more sense when you thought that the picture of Ahmadinejad was a picture of a random terrorist. This backpedal is just akward.
The only person assuming a bearded persian is a terrorist is you, friend. I get that reading for context is hard though, keep working at it.

Mecha_Infantry said:
You can't ban something just because it's amusing/hypocritical. I saw a lot worse during the elections
Who was arguing it should be banned? I specifically said it shouldn't be . That doesn't mean I don't find it amusing still. I already said, post it everywhere for maximum hilarity. That "censored" version is a trainwreck of foolishness.
 
#49
elrechazao said:
The only person assuming a bearded persian is a terrorist is you, friend. I get that reading for context is hard though, keep working at it.


Who was arguing it should be banned? I specifically said it shouldn't be . That doesn't mean I don't find it amusing still. I already said, post it everywhere for maximum hilarity. That "censored" version is a trainwreck of foolishness.
Ohhh my bad!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.