I’m very interested in your thoughts on the matter since you are the target audience for the ads that appear here.
Many readers were upset when they saw the BP greenwashing ads on Climate Progress over the weekend — I reprint one well-thought-out email below. Here’s the story of how they made it back onto CP.
CAPAF has an outside company, Common Sense Media, that rotates in different ads on the site — but I can object to any individual one. When the BP ads cropped up a few weeks ago, I got them pulled quickly.
When I was on some unexpected travel at the end of my vacation, BP (insanely) pulled its ads from my (big) sister site, ThinkProgress (see “BP Pulls Ads On ThinkProgress After Wonk Room Reports On Its Greenwashing Campaign.). TP reported, “BP has an agreement with Common Sense Media to be notified about blog postings that are critical of its advertising campaign, and BP reserves the right to pull ads if they are offended by the posts.”
As an aside, that is (almost) amazing, that BP would be so stupid as to engage in advertising on progressive websites (which is what CSM does) and then retain the option to withdraw their advertising if they didn’t like what was written. That leaves the distinct impression that they are advertising not merely to spread their corporate message — but to influence the websites, which ain’t gonna happen, most especially not with TP. I say “almost” amazing because obviously, BP arguably has the most incompetent corporate leadership in the world when it comes to public relations (and drilling wells safely, for that matter).
When, as was almost inevitable, BP resumed the ads on TP, they were accidentally also resumed on CP. Since I was on travel, I didn’t realize this for about 24 hours.
There are basically two views on accepting these kind of ads. Faiz Shakir, who oversees TP, blogs:
This controversy provides an opportunity for me to better communicate our blog’s policy with respect to paid advertisers on our site. My view is that, in order to sustain our operation, ThinkProgress is happy to take money from those with whom we have policy or ideological disagreements, provided they understand that we will not soften or silence our progressive point-of-view. There are limits, of course, to ads that we will accept. For instance, we do not want ads that are degrading or offensive on our site. But for those advertisers who want to run messaging on our site that counters TP’s reporting, we trust readers will take both pieces of information and render their own judgments. Because we have an outside ad company servicing our ads, the editors and reporters on TP are not generally informed of who is purchasing ads on our site “” and it’s better left that way. Advertisers will not influence our content, and we will not produce content to lure advertisers.
I asked Shakir for a further comment:
The nature of the blogging beast these days is that you need financial resources to keep it running. In order to sustain ThinkProgress, I’m more than happy to take BP’s money and simultaneously expose their greenwashing campaign for what it is. If advertisers have any expectation that they’re going to alter our content, they’re dead wrong. And I think we’ve shown that over the last few days.
This view is basically the one that my father had for 30 years running a medium-sized newspaper in New York State, so I fully understand it. I take a slightly different view.
As readers know, I don’t let commenters post long-debunked disinformation, since that forces me to waste time debunking it for the umpteenth time (a victory for disinformers) or, if I ignore it, then the many new people who come here every day would be exposed to undebunked disinformation (also, victory for disinformers).
BP is obviously a special case because:
- It is an extreme greenwasher (see “Should you believe anything BP says?” and links below).
- Its lies to the public, government, and itself have had catastrophic consequences (see The three causes of BP’s Titanic oil disaster: Recklessness, Arrogance, and Hubris).
- Even through this entire disaster, its key executives remained hard-core greenwashers (see Hayward remains proud but deluded: “I think BP’s response to this tragedy has been a model of good social corporate responsibility”).
The reason not to run their ads was well explained by one environmental expert who e-mailed me:
I’m really shocked and perplexed as to why you accepted advertising from BP about how they’re going to “make things right” in the Gulf. It seems to go completely against what you stand for, especially as the advertisement is essentially a greenwash — do you really think they are sincere? A huge oil company like BP is, as you of course know, primarily interested in profit. They have a PR problem, so they need to appear like they’re doing all they can to clean up their criminal spill.
But as you’ve posted on your site, they still lobby Congress against climate legislation, they’ve tried to restrict independent scientific inquiry into the damage the oil has done in the Gulf, etc. Why, then, let them advertise on your site? I’ve been so rankled by seeing the BP symbol on your site that I can longer regularly check it several times a day as I did. I’d appreciate some kind of explanation that I hope will restore my faith in CP as a feisty and independent blog defending sound science, policy and integrity in the U.S.
As explained above, it was only by accident that they got reintroduced to CP, and I got rid of them as fast as I was made aware of them. And I think that is the right thing for Climate Progress. Think Progress is a much bigger, general interest progressive blog, and so I fully understand and appreciate Shakir’s position.
What do you think?
Related Posts:
- “BP proves Beyond Petroleum was greenwashing, joins “biggest global warming crime ever seen”
- Waxman and Stupak demand BP detail scope of greenwashing campaign
- EXCLUSIVE: Sandra Bullock disowns BP-backed greenwashing campaign
- Exclusive: BP worked with FreedomWorks, Chamber to build phony ‘grassroots’ support for more drilling
- “BP proves Beyond Petroleum was greenwashing, joins “biggest global warming crime ever seen”
- Investors warn Shell and BP over tar sands greenwashing“
- BP stand for “back to petroleum” “” oil giant shuts clean energy HQ, slashes renewables budget up to $900 million this year, dives into tar sands
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Considering how often we’ve discussed here how media are influenced by their advertisers, I think it behooves both you and TP to not accept ads from anti-environmental companies. The appearance of impropriety can be enough to taint your message and/or offend your readers.
“As readers know, I don’t let commenters post long-debunked disinformation, since that forces me to waste time debunking it for the umpteenth time (a victory for disinformers) or, if I ignore it, then the many new people who come here every day would be exposed to undebunked disinformation (also, victory for disinformers).”
This is why I come here. Take a look around websites such as “Dot Earth” and all you see is denialist drivel spewing from the comment section like a BP run oil rig. The disinformatrons and their oil funded hate speech have no place in the public forum.
That being said, I can’t help but still feel a little disillusioned about the BP ads. Makes me wonder the scope of Big Oil’s greasy influence on even “progressive” websites. Say it ain’t so Joe!
I’d prefer not to see them at all.
But not so much that the ads would stop me from coming here or make me delete the feed in my reader… hmmm, I guess looking at it that way, deep down I could care less about the BP ads. They won’t have any effect on my thinking at all.
As to the other question, whether I think it’s appropriate to host ads from folks like BP – if they can pay for it and you need the cashflow to keep going, use them to your heart’s content. I’m fairly certain that regular readers, though they might hate the ads and the companies that produce them, would understand if they knew the ads were needed to pay for this space.
That said, I’m sure we all appreciate that we’re not inundated with stupidity when we come here. Thank you for that.
But don’t forget if times get tough, we’d all laugh at BP paying for our community.
[JR: I don't believe it is a big monetary impact. I haven't actually asked whether it has any impact or not. If they run out of ads in the queue and you see an empty space some time, then you'll know I'm probably losing a little money because that space could have been filled with BP ad. But in any case, it would not be a large fraction of my ad revenue, which, in any case, ain't enormous.]
:-)Oh, come on Joe! Get a sense of irony. ;-)
BP=”Big Problem”, that’s what I think…(not to be confused with CP, of course;D)
As Hunter Lovins used to say at Rocky Mountain Institute when we received grant money from Coors, which was at the time polluting Clear Creek, Colorado: “Who better to take their money?”
I Agree With CP
I agree that CP should not host/run BP’s ads. Part of thinking clearly and standing for what you say, and sustaining credibility, is backing principles and ideas with actions, even when the latter aren’t all that convenient. I agree with your view (Joe).
I find this statement to be rather amazing — not surprising, but amazing:
TP reported, “BP has an agreement with Common Sense Media to be notified about blog postings that are critical of its advertising campaign, and BP reserves the right to pull ads if they are offended by the posts.”
This sort of thing reflects the “systemic” sort of pressure that causes immense problems in modern mainstream media and, thus, to democracy and sustainability themselves. Whether stated or not, the realization that large advertisers can and will pull advertising — and thus revenue — if content (of any sort) is critical of them (as companies) or of their ads has immense implications. Witness The New York Times’ relationship and “kid glove” treatment of ExxonMobil over the past several years.
Although I understand the dilemma and point that Faiz Shakir explains, I must say that I don’t agree. The only way to be clean, crisp, and retain full credibility and trust, it seems to me, is to not accept such advertising. To do that, one must find a way not to be dependent on advertising from some segments of society. Indeed, a media outlet, blog, or etc., should strive to be sustainable based on advertising from all the various industries that are reasonably clean and sane, or at least trying to be so. There are plenty of companies other than BP and other than the oil and coal companies. Plenty of them. If media outlets, blogs, etc. can’t sustain themselves based on advertising from companies who “get it” and who have at least some credibility, then the “business model” is not right. Credible companies should help support credible blogs and media, and credible blogs and media should seek out credible companies — not bending content to do so, of course.
Too, we readers — as “consumers” — must support the credible companies who are trying, and drop the “in”credible companies who are messing up, if we expect this all to work! To a company, if credibility doesn’t pay, then it’s tempting to go the other route. If we want CP (and TP) to avoid taking BP ads, then we should also avoid buying BP gas — and I’d suggest also avoiding ExxonMobil products. Alas, in our environment, money speaks. So, we need to withhold our money from companies whose actions we don’t agree with. Period.
Great post, Joe. Welcome back from vacation.
Be Well,
Jeff
Whatever you decide is fine with me. I long ago trained my eyes to ignore flashing distractions on a web page. But at times I miss obvious links because I’m just not looking.
Go ahead, take their money — they’re wasting it here. Atrios always has ads for NewsMax and Sarah Palin and whatnot — it’s just amusing in my view, it’s not going to persuade anybody or do any harm. In fact, it gives you the opportunity to trash them if you like. It seems to me Climate Progress comes out ahead by taking BP’s money, they aren’t getting anything for it.
I found it strange that the BP ad seemed to break up the layout of the site. Margins disappeared and there was a blue background strip in the middle of the page with an About link at the top of it. I noticed that other reader’s had commented about the problem. I have not noticed it at any other time, only when the BP ad was present.
I don’t know if it was a malicious attempt on BP’s part to mess up this site but something was definitely out of whack. I would not trust BP.
It is naive to assume BP doesn’t get anything out of putting ads on sites like CP. They aren’t idiots. They will use it to buy credibility, to ‘prove’ they support progressive causes etc. Why give them more material to spin?
You did the right thing Joe. I don’t accept any advertising on my site.
Personally I think you’re right to refuse BP’s ads. Showing them just gives the company or its supporters an opening to claim conflict of interest. Not that it would be true, but experience teaches that truth is a small matter to Big Polluter and its ilk.
BTW: I’m now reading Merchants of Doubt. It’s amazing how the names of two Freds — Seitz and Singer — crop in every controversy from secondhand smoke to climate change.
Joe,
I rarely take any notice of ads personally, but I think greenwashing is not to be encouraged full stop. Agree that you were right to get the ads pulled.
As an aside, you could spare a little time to check this out:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/24/pakistan-floods-deluges-after-the-deluge#start-of-comments
It’s the storm of comments from the rabid masses I object to. They are down on the Guardian like vultures to roadkill most days – an Astroturf boiler room must be at least partially involved. It would be extremely interesting to see if that was indeed the case….
Cheers – John
The image at the top of this post resonates powerfully with those of us who lived through the Vietnam War. My first reaction was that it’s over the top. Then I thought of the 11 men who died on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and realized I was wrong about that.
I had the same experience as Mark H.
Joe,
Thanks for the explanation. As usual, a very frank and direct discussion which is refreshing.
I would prefer not to see BP’s ads in the blog and I am glad you pulled them. I believe BPs ads may have influence on folks who are unaware of how the branding mechanism is intended to work on our psyche, especially with greenwashing.
Ads are blocked.
Joe, I say you did the right thing. And I applaud you for doing it.
The “who better to take their money than me?” argument has a strong fishy smell about it. Dishonest and unethical companies don’t advertise for nothing – they advertise because advertising has been proven to help them achieve their (in this case, nefarious) ends. Providing such companies a forum for their unethical and dishonest ads is therefore furthering their cause, any way you try to spin the facts. “We take their money and use it against their greenwashing” sounds to me very much like greenwashing itself – greewashing applied to greenwashing, in fact.
There is a more subtle fact as well. We humans do have a tendency to find ways to talk ourselves into getting what we want, even when that involves compromising some of our own beliefs. And then we talk ourselves into new beliefs to justify the compromises we have made.
As an example, I’ve never seen an honest interview with a professional stripper who felt it would be a good profession for her baby daughter to eventually enter. I’ve also never seen an honest interview with a professional stripper who expressed anything other than extreme contempt, often loathing, for the men who pay her to perform. It seems pretty clear that these women are aware that the profession is degrading to them, but rather than deal with the self-loathing, they lay it on their clients. “I’m not really disgusting for taking advantage of these men – they’re scumbags, so that makes me the better one, right? They deserve to be taken advantage of.”
And that is exactly the problem with “I’m a good person, so I’ll take the bad guys money and use it against them! See, I’m the good guy!” At the moment when you compromise your own integrity enough to put money before your own personal ethics, you are doing exactly what unscrupulous companies everywhere do – put money before ethics.
If this isn’t all clear yet, consider what some of the people we hold up as our ethical ideals would have done in the circumstances. Would Mother Teresa have accepted money from a company that kicked poverty-stricken people into the gutter? Jesus may be a fictional character, but, consistent with his portrayed character, would he have accepted funds from the money-changers to build a temple to his “Father”? The Buddha wanted to bring peace to humanity, do you think he would have accepted money from BP, despoilers of the planet, to help spread his message?
-Nemo
joe,
Thanks for explaining.
I do not want to see them here. BP disgust’s every fiber of my body.
Thanks for pulling them Joe.
My 2 cents: I don’t care about the BP ads, and I’m fine with taking their money. If “BP disgust’s [sic] every fiber of [your] body”, to the point of not being able to spell or type, or perhaps think, maybe you ought to recover your sense of humor and humanity.
My sense of humanity is good enough to recognize that my opinion is probably in the minority here.
No blood money. You should go a step further and add an information block below the advertisement space and maintain a list companies whose adds have been rejected because of blatent greenwashing or other conflicts of interest. (Standards to be determined.)
Since BP retains the right to pull adds do not fit THEIR corporate image then I suggest that we commentators and Joe as well are not considered a thereat to them. So we have to get in their face even more than we are and have been. We need to be black listed by them. Other wise take their money Joe.
Energy Secretary Chu says BP will save the planet.
Thanks Joe for the explanation.
At one time airlines used to advertise heavily on TV news programs. When there was news of a plane crash, that often was embarrassing (stupid) to see an ad for air travel. So advertisers would put in an automatic request to pull the ad for a few days after such a news event. Everybody was happy.
However, when an entire TV show is dominantly sponsored by a company… or an entire industry… oh like the carbon fuel industry – then it is a different matter. Take the show Meet the Press – they have lots of messages from Exxon/Mobil and petroleum lobby groups – now if Meet the Press starts to displease their primary advertiser, for instance by discussing carbon combustion and global warming – well then they are talking about losing the majority of their revenue source. They may not control the facts of science, but they certainly control the presentation of the issue.
Glad that you are fearless to even small advertising.
Who is Duane Smith?
#26 Who is Duane Smith?
Duane Smith is yet another member of the “Smith family” (excepting David, of course), who routinely post inane drive-by comments without ever engaging in the discussion. Feel free to ignore.
#11 Stephen Leahy makes an excellent point. BP is not to be trusted at all. They gain credibility by advertising on “green” sites, and they know it (brand association is a tried and true method in marketing – you see BP’s brand on green sites over and over and over…).
Besides, I routinely point personal friends (and blog commentators) who need more education on climate change to CP, and I would hate for them to be exposed to BP greenwash while they are here.
For both of these reasons, I would suggest that TP take down BP ads as well.
I agree with this post from above:
“It is naive to assume BP doesn’t get anything out of putting ads on sites like CP. They aren’t idiots. They will use it to buy credibility, to ‘prove’ they support progressive causes etc. Why give them more material to spin?”
Their two main skills appear to be controlling/ eliminating/neutralizing legislation and enforcement;
and P.R.
I was sucked in by their greenwashing in the past.
get rid of them.
Sheesh! Take their money. I think having BP’s greenwashing on display where we can point to it and call it like it is does more to expose them for what they are. If you pull their greenwashing ads then you’re helping to hide the problem.
This is part of the problem today. People (present audience excluded) tend to consume advertising messages without thinking. Society need to learn to take all this stuff with, more than just a grain of salt, we need the entire salt mine at the ready.
Don’t hide it. Expose it. Shine the light of day on it.
Assuming that you need the money badly…
General rule: Take their money and use it against them.
Exceptions: There are some that are just too much. You know them by the clenching of your gut.
Coping with unusual cases: Run a one-line advisement at the top of the blog section of the page that says something like, “Remember, we agree that BP is a lying sack of fish poo.”
BTW, that’s a very powerful image you used to make the graphic…
For those who don’t recognize it, I think that’s the Saigon chief of police summarily executing a suspected freedom-fighter/terrorist in the middle of the street. The original picture ran prominently in newspapers across the world and became the icon for the brutal and corrupt dictatorship in South Vietnam. The original weapon looked like a 32 Police Special.
I wasn’t sure I thought it was a clear enough parallel at first, but, hey, its art!
I would not be offended if you run the ads, but I do applaud your decision not to.
And yes the image is a powerfull one.
I never see any ads because I use an adblock program on my browser. That said, I think you do well not to take their ads.
I think you did the right thing Joe.