A Super Bowl ad told us not to hate. The internet proved just how much we still do

The backlash to an ad promoting empathy says everything about where we’re at—and just how far trust has unravelled, writes Moira Were AM.

“I hate that things are so bad we need a commercial about it,” Snoop Dogg tells Tom Brady in 'No Reason to Hate,' a Super Bowl LIX ad funded by Foundation to Combat Antisemitism.

The spot features them in a face-to-face exchange, saying, "I hate you because..." followed by statements like, "because you look different", "because I don't understand you”, and “because I need someone to blame”.

It's jarring and in-your-face—and that’s precisely the point.

Unsurprisingly, viewers quickly took to social media to criticise the pair for their involvement, especially given their ties to President Trump.

Yes, that’s right: a commercial aimed at addressing hate ended up generating its own fair share of it. It's a sad state of affairs when a commercial designed to promote understanding shows us just how much work we still must do.

The online reaction highlights the larger challenge we face: how can we engage in meaningful conversations about hate, polarisation, and understanding when our channels of communication are ground zero for hostility and division? How do we foster meaningful conversations about understanding and empathy when our discourse is dominated by grievance?

We’ve gone far beyond Charlie Brown’s exasperated “Good grief” when faced with life’s frustrations. Nowadays, many of us are quick to turn to grievances as a first response—a knee-jerk reaction to disappointment or anger—before we pause to understand what’s really going on. This shift in behaviour is not just a minor social trend; it’s become a cultural norm. Hostile activism is on the rise, with people leaping online to attack, demean, and publicly humiliate, often without a moment’s thought.

Unfortunately, this hostile behaviour has become more expected, and even tolerated, in many circles. When world leaders—once paragons of decorum and diplomacy—start to act in unstatesmanlike ways, they give others tacit permission to do the same. And while this is not new, the sheer scale, boldness, and speed with which it occurs today are unprecedented.

I live in the state where Rupert Murdoch got his start in the newspaper world—a state known for its progressive legislation on women’s rights, land rights, and workplace relations, to name a few. But even in a place with a reputation for forward-thinking reforms, trust is at a breaking point. One source of this concern is the Edelman Trust Barometer (ETB), which provides an annual snapshot of how much faith people have in institutions like business, government, and media.

This year, the barometer has painted a troubling picture: trust in business is at a low point, partly due to the perception that corporations are meddling in social issues. This dynamic played out recently on Australia Day when Sky News led the charge against corporations—like hotel chains and supermarkets—that had aligned themselves with customers and shareholders in expressing their views on the day. The backlash was swift, and many corporate decisions were reversed. Is this corporate activism at an extreme?

But while these high-level corporate spats grab headlines, a more insidious form of grievance is creeping into everyday life. In my role as the mayor of a South Australian council, where one in ten South Australians live, I have witnessed this shift firsthand. Online forums, which were once spaces for community engagement, have become hotbeds of misinformation. A seemingly innocent question about bin collection days can quickly spiral into accusations of corruption, incompetence, and self-interest.

As frustrating as this may be, much of the vitriol we encounter online remains anonymous. Keyboard warriors sling insults and accusations with little accountability, and unfortunately, vilifying others rarely accomplishes the goal of getting the job done. Often, it escalates tensions and fuels polarisation.

So how do we navigate this landscape of heightened grievance?

The ETB offers some much-needed guidance. Its advice is clear: influence is earned through compassion, not power.

If we approach grievances the old-fashioned way—starting with listening—perhaps we can begin to turn the tide. It’s about acknowledging concerns, investigating solutions, and taking actions that address those grievances in meaningful ways. Yet in today’s climate, the ability to follow these steps is increasingly difficult. We’re in a world of fire-first, ask-questions-later, where the rush to react often replaces the slower, more deliberate process of understanding.

To borrow a metaphor from nature, it’s like being in a bushfire season. The fires are already blazing before we’ve even gathered the kindling. The temperatures are rising, and we’re not ready for what’s to come.

And much like the climate crisis, the stakes are high. We’re facing a crisis of trust that mirrors the crisis of the environment. The ETB warns that all institutions—businesses, governments, and even NGOs—are at risk. With unprecedented weather patterns around the globe and the immediate threat of a further environmental collapse, we must take measures to weather these changing climatic conditions.

It’s going to be slow. It’s going to be difficult. And it’s going to require us to rebuild trust, brick by brick. That rebuilding process begins with honesty—saying what we mean and meaning what we say. It means following through on promises, explaining when something can’t be done, and bringing as many people to the table as possible to find solutions. It’s about listening to learn-not react. In all environments: online, in the council chamber, and in our everyday interactions.

We must be careful not to contribute to the widening gap between the rich and the poor, as the ETB identifies this as one of the key factors undermining trust. It’s easy to blame the “other,” but we need to look for ways to create new partnerships and collaborations—finding common ground with those who may not share our views but can work alongside us to address common challenges. I am a big fan of the work of Adam Kahane who wrote a book called “Collaborating with the Enemy”. He reminds us that enemies are everywhere, and they aren’t the problem. They will distract, demonise and destablise us and we can’t avoid having people and systems we don’t agree with, however Kahane says “we need to focus simply on deciding, given these challenges, what we ourselves will do next.”

I chose to keep on with the trust-building assignment. We don’t have to like each other to work together, but we do have to respect each other enough to listen, understand, and where possible find a way to do it together.