All the News That’s Fit to Shill
All the News That’s Fit to Shill
Both financial services powerhouse Morgan Stanley and global energy powerhouse British Petroleum, two giants of their respective industries, recently “informed print publications that its ads must be automatically pulled from any edition containing ‘objectionable editorial coverage.’” In the case of British Petroleum, ad-accepting publications are now required to “inform BP in advance of any news text or visuals they plan to publish that directly mention the company, a competitor or the oil-and-energy industry.” These are not empty threats. As one veteran of the magazine industry put it, “magazines are not in the financial position today to buck rules from advertisers.”
The timing of their decisions is no coincidence. A recent settlement against Morgan Stanley has splayed the firm’s name over the front pages of finance papers. Just today, another top investment banker announced his departure, “adding to the exodus of executive departures that has plagued the firm over the last seven weeks.” Unlike Morgan Stanley, British Petroleum hasn’t had a large amount of press coverage lately but some issues on the horizon — like the House and Senate energy bills (and the undue influence of industry lobbyists) — have caught the attention of everyone in the energy industry. Corporations in general are suiting up to fight back against corporate oversight, particularly the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
The power that these firms are trying to wield is an affront to free press, one of the democratic ideals that we should all hold in the highest esteem. If their actions don’t generate good news, then they should fix their company not the news.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Hmm, a brainstorm has hit!!!
May 24th, 2005 at 12:22 pmPerhaps we should in Iraq fix the problems and not the news! Man, I need to copyright that idea.
It has always been thus. The news media has always been conscious of who they slime; who they put on a pedastal.
Ad revenue is FRONT AND CENTER, and it always will be. To express shock at this catering to a large customer exposes extreme ignorance of the process.
Newpapers are sort of like churches & unions. They say what they need to say in order to maximize revenue. They are all three businesses, courting the dollar. All else is secondary.
The sooner a person grasps this concept, the sooner one can focus on earning an adequate income to allow some semblence of financial security. If you don’t do it, let me tell you, NO ONE is going to do it.
Years ago, when our local daily paper (The Anchorage Daily News) was a quarter, a young fellow I knew was doing deliveries in his small pickup. They paid him 27 cents apiece. What is the significance of that, you ask?
It demonstrates that the price of the paper is just a small part of the equation. The ad revenue is the vast majority of income – in all medias. When the big players pull out or threaten to pull out, the media listens.
Nothing evil or sinister about this fact. It’s just reality. Grasp it and move on.
May 24th, 2005 at 12:44 pmat some point you should try to stay on topic instead of turning into a diatrabe about how all the poor people are coming to take away your money. Personally I don’t believe that you have never accepted any sort of government assistants or the like? No pell grants, student loans, FHA loans etc so please stay on the topic Tony/Buckshot. It is not new that a company would make such a threat to supress stories that may cast them in a bad light. However we don’t have to accept it and move on. It is unethical for a company to do such a thing, that is the point to this post. Please, please try to stay on topic and do not hijack the threads. I know you don’t not have a social conciouss but the majority do.
May 24th, 2005 at 1:28 pmVery disturbing. The claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
What’s new and different: BP’s demand that they–not the editoral board–vet in advance all content pertaining to BP. That goes well beyond an advertiser’s right to cancel his or her patronage.
As you suggest, this is a challenge both to corporate oversight and the democratic process.
Respectfully, not to be perverse, I’m not yet convinced of the Sarbanes-Oxley connection. What I see right now is the major accounting firms making a great money from SOX.
Is the resistance to SOX part of the corporate mainsteam, or the just the usual “pro-business” activists? (Most of whom have never been in business but serve only as pundits and policy-noise makers).
I think your general points stand regardles of the SOX tie-in, however.
What are some solutions? That is a question, btw. I don’t have the answers.
We need more disclosure on the part of major media–particularly since they do receive some benefits–legal and otherwise–as they are nominally acting on behalf of public interest.
Likewise, Free speech always has to paid for somehow. We nned to support those media organizations which–however flawed–do make a honest effort at journalism rather than corporate public relations.
May 24th, 2005 at 1:33 pmKrazny, you are right on.
I can’t decide whether buckshot is a plant whose purpose is to antogonize and create more debate….or to annoy and frustrate so that we give up. Either way, F%&* him and the iceberg that he calls home. Time to ignore.
This topic is yet another sign of things to come and underscores how critical it’s going to be that we fight to keep the internet from being controlled by private interests. That will be critical to the right-wing movement. For them, truth hurts the cause and dissent will not be tolerated.
May 24th, 2005 at 1:38 pmAdvertising vs. Enabling
May 24th, 2005 at 2:04 pmThat Morgan Stanley and BP have adopted zero-tolerance policies of rescinding ads from magazines publishing “objectionable editorial coverage” is simply a reflection of how weak the advertising market must be for these publications. The co…
Jay, I hate to break it to you, but the internet is almost totally controlled by private interests. The fiber is owned by telecom companies, and servers and websites are owned by everyone from IBM to Joe Schmo in Iowa.
If you want gov’t controlled internet, go to China where they censor and arrest you for posting anything that the gov’t doesn’t agree with.
May 24th, 2005 at 2:23 pmWhat’s the problem here? If a media outlet doesn’t like MS or BP’s terms, they can find other advertisers. If they are OK with the terms and/or the outlet does not provide disclosure, and the reader is not OK with this, then the reader can choose to ignore the media outlet.
Adding gov’t bureaucracy to “regulate” media is not the answer.
May 24th, 2005 at 2:35 pmPrivate interests meaning powerful corporate interests and their bitches in Congress, not Joe Schmo from anywhere. The content of TV and radio is heavily monitored and controlled (FCC, advertisers, etc.) as evidenced by this BP/Morgan Stanley powerplay.
Joe Schmo has the freedom to create a website and reach a huge audience thanks to the internet, he can’t do that on TV or radio. Millions of regular citizens use the internet as a tool to learn and share information and in my opinion its the last bastion of independent, democratic media….which means the Republicans will soon try to bottle it up.
May 24th, 2005 at 2:46 pmI don’t believe anyone was advocating adding a government agency to regulate media outside of the ones already in existance FCC comes to mind. the point jay was making is that the internet is capable of reaching many, with a very low cost where radio or TV, and print media very expensive. which is what causes the advertiser conflicts as listed in this post.
May 24th, 2005 at 2:50 pmUnless BP or Morgan Stanley’s ad revenue comprises a signnificant % of the media outlets overall revenue. When media was more diverse in its ownership it may have been possible to drop a large sponsor, but now that 5 or so megacorporations own all of the large media outlets, they can’t risk losing that revenue to one of the four other competitors. Make sense?
May 24th, 2005 at 2:52 pmKrazny,
I responded directly to the topic.
You wrote a long, nonsensical paragraph about buckshot this and buckshot that. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read my posts.
Jay,
Your last sentence was ironic. “For them, truth hurts the cause and dissent will not be tolerated.”
Batboy,
You started by making a valid point, that anyone here is free to ignore me or anyone else they don’t agree with.
Yet, proving that they have no self control, the repeatedly read my posts, analyze my posts, and then respond to my posts, often having a tantrum in the process. Further making my point.
Tony,
These kids simply did not learn in school how our government operates. They look to government as the solution to all problems. The solution lies within the individual, and is manifested through rational thought, a definite plan, and a bit of self discipline.
Krazny,
It isn’t even clear that you know what YOU are trying to say, and now you are interpreting what Jay MEANT to say? How amusing.
May 24th, 2005 at 2:59 pmJoe Schmo has the freedom to create a cable news channel, or his own newspaper. Yes, creating a TV channel takes $$, but he is not restricted from doing it.
I agree that Congress/FCC needs to be kept away from regulating the internet.
You are not forced to get news from TV/magazines/radio or anywhere else. If you don’t like the MS/BP ad scheme, don’t pay attention to the outlet. I would agree that a BP sponsored news segment on the cleanliness of gasoline is a conflict of interest. So you and I won’t watch it. But don’t restrict the freedom of individuals or groups of individuals from contracting with each other.
I get my news from primary sources on the internet (transcripts, congressional bill text, etc.). It’s the only unbiased source there is. If I don’t have time for that, I get news from a few different sources, some liberal, some conservative, some moderate, and make my views based on all of them.
May 24th, 2005 at 3:14 pmhahaha…..and I have the freedom to fly to the moon and there are no laws that can stop me from doing it, it’s that damn reality that always scuttles my plans. Give me a break. I’m not concerned about where you and I get our information, we take the same approach, it’s the sheeple that I’m concerned about and as unfortunate as it may be, too many Americans just don’t care to engage in politics beyond what they see on their TV’s or hear on the radio.
I wonder how many Americans are actually looking to the internet, C-SPAN, reading newspapers, etc for their news as opposed to how many rely on mainstream TV and talk-radio as their primary source of political information? Would be interesting to know.
May 24th, 2005 at 3:27 pmWell, you can’t use public ignorance as a reason to abridge freedom of association.
May 24th, 2005 at 3:50 pmYou have freedom to fly to the moon, but not a right. I suppose its unfair that the rich can fly to the moon, but not you?
May 24th, 2005 at 3:51 pmNot sure what the ability of the rich to fly to the moon has to do with corporate ethics?
May 24th, 2005 at 4:42 pmMaybe the publications, that choose to use the ads and obtain the revenue, should post a regular disclaimer notice on the opposite page from the ad, that says that such and such an ad has the following rules. “BP wants you to know that we will not publish any negative stories about them in this magazine as along as they are advertisers. Thank you!”
May 24th, 2005 at 6:03 pmJay,
I think you have just enough natural intellect that you may have a “light bulb” moment one of these days. Until then, keep studying.
The clock is ticking. Don’t wait till you’re 55 to start planning for your old age.
May 24th, 2005 at 7:54 pmStrange. Many, many years ago (no smart cracks, please), when I started learning the newspaper advertising business, I was taught that it is far better to have a page full of small ads than one large full page ad.
October 23rd, 2005 at 4:16 pmAfter all, it only takes one phone call to cancel a full page, lots and lots of phone calls to cancel the smaller ads. BTW, your “terms of use” put up a lot of read flags in my copy of the Eulalyzer program
juicy pussies
Please visit some relevant information on yu gi oh porn teen hairstyles free anime porn
November 6th, 2005 at 11:37 pm