Washington Post analysis called Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl set “wholesome, traditional family values,” a claim this piece disputes by pointing out the explicit lyrics, provocative staging, and political overtones critics say the paper downplayed.
The Washington Post published an analysis that framed Bad Bunny’s halftime performance as fitting with “wholesome, traditional family values,” and that line has landed with a thud among critics. The piece suggests new leadership at the paper has not corrected what many see as tone-deaf cultural commentary. That disconnect between description and spectacle sparked a sharp reaction across the right-leaning media world.
Bad Bunny’s set included language and moves many viewers found explicit, and the writer admits parts of the lyrics weren’t fully understood. The Post even awarded the show a “provocative” score of 3/10, “if that.” Those who watched closely flagged a mix of sexualized choreography and messaging that leaned left politically, making the low score surprising to some observers.
“The show had the kind of wholesome, traditional family values that would have fit right in with some of the more sentimental commercials that appeared during the game,” the Post wrote, drawing an eyebrow-raising comparison. Framing the performance this way turned a headline into a Rorschach test for readers deciding whether the paper was serious or being ironic. For many, that posture looks less like analysis and more like bias wearing a tie.
Comparisons to children’s programming felt especially off-base when you look at what actually played out on stage. The report itself described moments resembling Elmo “offer[ing] trademark grabs of his crotch while singing about an anaconda and inspired pelvic gyrations,” which is hardly the sort of material parents expect to see equated with family-friendly ads. That disconnect between claim and example made the analysis read like wishful thinking.
The Post also tried to cast Bad Bunny’s wardrobe choices and onstage behavior in traditional masculine terms. “And yes, the camera caught two men grinding from the waist up at one point, but Bad Bunny didn’t indulge his own penchant for gender play,” the article reads. “You can’t get much more traditionally masculine than a football jersey and a men’s suit, can you?” That argument strains credibility when the performance featured gender-bending theatrics alongside testosterone-coded imagery.
Readers on the right saw a pattern: the paper applying friendly spin where plain description would do, then demanding credit for even-handedness. That kind of media posture feeds the perception that major outlets filter culture through ideological lenses rather than describe it clearly. When coverage describes provocative conduct as comparable to ad spots, it raises questions about editorial priorities and judgment.
This episode also spotlights a broader problem at legacy outlets: the struggle to reconcile newsroom sensibilities with a national audience that cares about clear labeling. Calling explicit spectacle “wholesome” reads like either a bad-faith reinterpretation or a misfire in editorial taste. Either way, it reinforces the argument that the paper is out of step with many readers and in need of a serious rethink.
At stake here isn’t just an argument over a halftime show; it’s trust. When major publications posture as neutral arbiters while glossing over obvious contradictions, they erode the credibility people rely on to make sense of culture and politics. If the Washington Post wants to regain authority, clear-eyed reporting that matches words to images would be a logical place to start.
