By Juan Larrosa (February 9, 2026)<\/p>\n
Over the years, the Super Bowl halftime show has become a controversial space for political expression\u2014highly contradictory and seemingly charged with high stakes. This dynamic\u2014which was evident yesterday in Bad Bunny\u2019s performance\u2014also plays out at the Oscars, the Grammys, and the Golden Globes. The question that arises is: what is really at stake politically in these moments?<\/p>\n
As a starting point, it is worth noting that these spectacles fall within what scholars Daniel Dayan and Elihu Katz termed media events several years ago<\/em>. Such events share several characteristics: they are carefully designed\u2014nothing is spontaneous\u2014specifically crafted for dissemination through mass media and digital platforms, and broadcast live. They also interrupt everyday routines, as when entire families dedicate a Sunday afternoon to watching the Super Bowl, and they contain a clear ritualistic and dramaturgical dimension.<\/p>\n In the original theory of media events<\/em>, developed to interpret phenomena characteristic of the era of mass communication\u2014but still useful in times of platformization\u2014this ritual component is said to fulfill specific social functions, including acting as a rite of passage during moments of significant social change. In recent years, the Super Bowl and its halftime show have functioned as a space of counter-power in the face of a reactionary turn toward conservative values in the United States. This is not without irony and paradox, since the NFL is generally a conservative league primarily dedicated to generating profit, where overt politics tends to cause discomfort.<\/p>\n Bad Bunny\u2019s performance included a clear critique of dominant U.S. politics. From the moment his participation was announced, intense controversy emerged between the MAGA movement and those who supported the decision. The show staged values of multiculturalism, diversity, and cosmopolitanism\u2014precisely those that Trump opposed and that, in part, propelled him to power. Images of rural Puerto Rico and recurring power outages appeared on stage, alongside brown skin and Latin dance rhythms; Lady Gaga performed a song with salsa influences; and Ricky Martin sang one of the most political verses from Bad Bunny\u2019s latest album: Que no quiero que hagan contigo lo que le pas\u00f3 a Haw\u00e1i\u201d.<\/p>\n In the end, the singer concluded with the phrase \u201cGod Bless America\u201d and then listed all the countries of the continent, reclaiming the idea of America as a region rather than a single country.<\/p>\n For the United States, the show may have functioned as a ritual to make visible the country’s deep divisions and to generate the kinds of rites of dispute and transition described by media events theory. But the Super Bowl is, at the same time, a global media event: from that stage, we witnessed part of the cultural war that is currently reshaping the world\u2019s political landscape.<\/p>\n At the same time, we cannot be na\u00efve. All of the above is made possible by a sports league focused on amassing enormous amounts of money\u2014resources and profits that could be directed toward addressing educational and health problems within the United States itself. It is a hyper-commercial event designed to sell beer, wings, pickup trucks, and hair-loss products. Once it ends, it reverts to everyday life: people turn off their televisions or screens and continue their daily routines.<\/p>\n This is a commentary by Juan Larrosa for Informativo NTR. If you would like to read this text in its written version, I invite you to visit my website: juan hyphen larrosa dot com. Until next time.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\n