Chicagoist: Cool Globes and a Hot Topic

Ferdy

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:19:35 -0600

Yes, in fact, I think there are problems with taking any old advertising. It's not harmless. The Camel cartoon is a perfect example of how advertising aimed at children was successful. Sophomoric and elitist? How so? I don't think I did anything of the sort, so you'll have to explain yourself. We're talking about some sophisticated advertising out of the Reagan camp that neither Clinton nor Kennedy ever matched, especially Kennedy. Perhaps you just were too young to remember it. I'd like some specifics about the free speech/advertising case law. Probably equal time, not really free speech, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, I think it behooves every publication to have some standards to show its readers that it's not just grubbing for money. Stand for something, damn it!

guest

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:53:16 -0600

No one said an organization is obligated to take any and all advertising, Ferdy. I'm just saying there is nothing wrong with taking ads from pretty much anyone. (Yes, pretty much anyone.) While I am no fan of Reagan, I found your example to be sophomoric and elitist at best. Enough people fell for the bullshit J. Kennedy or Bill Clinton peddled, though that is likely another dicussion. Advertising does have free speech protections, though, of course, there are limits. If you don't believe me, check out the case law. Drink a lot of coffee, though, before you do. I guess my biggest problem with your attitude is you seem to prefer some sort of ideological purity. I'd rather throw everything into the mix and let the people decide.

Ferdy

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:14:52 -0600

Advertising is not protected free speech, and no organization is obligated to take any and all advertising. I give no one credit for being able to see through B.S. They bought the "New Dawn for America" ads of Ronald Reagan, didn't they?

guest

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:08:01 -0600

Just because a publication accepts ads does not mean the publication agrees with the company or person placing the ads. Do you really believe that, Ferdy ("...it's probably Gothamist that took the ad and doesn't give a rat's ass about what they do to our water supply.")? And the people you work for sounds like they don't really believe in free speech, either, though, of course, I could be wrong or not realize the full context. I give people more credit in being able to see through BS ads. And were I to have a blog or publication, I would be more than happy to accept payment for ads and still write whatever the hell I want. Believe me, it can happen.

Ferdy

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:56:27 -0600

Actually, I'm surprised Chicagoist would be so bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you on this, though it's probably Gothamist that took the ad and doesn't give a rat's ass about what they do to our water supply. I work for some people who wouldn't be so generous as to allow people to try to buy the truth with advertising.

guest

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:14:51 -0600

So, Ferdy: You would deny the right of advertising to corporations? No, I don't like BP, and I don't buy their bullshit. Still, what's with this anti-free speech tone you are trying to set?

Julene McCoy

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:59:37 -0600

I love the balls on BP to create advertising in response to their getting the environmnetal regulations changed in order to add more pollutants into the lake with this catchphrase, "BP is committed to meeting or exceeding regulations that protect the environment." Unless, of course, we have deemed those regulations to be too stringent.

Ferdy

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:25:10 -0600

Looks like the BP advertising is back on Chicagoist!

fishunderice

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:01:29 -0600

Perspective; How do you figure that?? Sr. was the one that initiated the philanthropists of the family. He walked around giving people money. He single handedly created charities to save the life of countless poor and destitute. Just because he happened to be the richest man ever you will lable him a robber baron?? Nice. Also, it was when he retired his son was put in charge of all the Rockefeller foundations etc... By your standards Bill Gates is the biggest and most ruthless evil doer of our generation, regardless of how much he gives to charities.

guest

Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:45:56 -0600

"BP was founded as Standard Oil Company." Wow, I did not realize that. And I thought BP and Amoco were separate companies that merged in 1998. How silly of me.

Perspective

Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:06:22 -0600

It's a good thing to question BP's motives. I believe you will find that J.D. Rockefeller Sr. was a hated robber barron and ruthlessly built is company by putting others out of business. It was his son, J.D. Jr. who was charged with the task of rehabilitating the family name via philanthropy.

Ferdy

Sun, 29 Jul 2007 08:22:43 -0600

The best interests of the shareholders is a fiduciary responsibility, but not the only responsibility a corporation has. A corporation is subject to the laws of the land, e.g., not in violation of labor, environmental, and trade laws. There is no higher responsibility to shareholders--that is what became the "law" in the 1980s. As to BP, this is old news that I find a little strange to see here, seeing as Chicagoist was accepting advertising in BP's propaganda campaign last week.

guest

Sun, 29 Jul 2007 03:28:45 -0600

We are morons; we can send people to the moon but can't find an alternative to the combustible engine!

guest

Sun, 29 Jul 2007 03:19:28 -0600

Unfortnutely, the law says that corporations must make every decision in the the shareholders' best interest, which means that environmental and other concerns are just thrust aside... Do you realize that a corporation, by law, enjoys every right and privilege of being an american citizen that you do? Why is that? A corporation has no soul--you do. Why are they held up as equals in the court system, as it relates to an individual? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that corporations can afford a whole team of lawyers that easily can surpass your puny one. Why is this country so skewed towards the interests of big business and corporations? Do you really think that that's what our founding forefathers had in mind? The choice is yours...you can keep perpetuating the status quo, or...you can choose to make a difference. This is supposed to be a government for, by, and of the people--it's about time we started acting like it...

guest

Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:32:08 -0600

Tim, We've missed you! So glad you're back!! As always, great article!