August 11, 2005

Advertisers Fear Lack of Control Over Blogs

In today's Advertising Age, one will find this article that discusses Advertisers' fears that their products will sullied if they appear on blogs with objectionable content.

Is it safe to advertise in places on the Internet that are essentially run by consumers and cannot be controlled? How can they protect themselves and their good names when blog and chat-room users are liable to say and post anything? It’s not just pornography or off-color language that worries them. What if consumers got angry about something involving a marketer’s brand, and their remarks got linked to across the Internet? Maybe advertising in such open spaces is not worth the risk.

That’s certainly true for toy marketers, said Rick Locker, of law firm Locker Greenberg & Brainin, who represents the Toy Industry Association. “Most would view that guerrilla approach as not suitable for their products because they can’t control what goes on there.”

What does this say about advertising and its effects on more controlled media, such as newspapers? If advertisers fear the lack of control of blogs, does that not suggest that part of writing a newspaper is exercising control that will attract advertising dollars?

But technology is coming to the rescue of concerned advertisers:

…Scott Rafer, CEO of Feedster, a blog and RSS search engine and ad network…is building technology to monitor and filter blogs. The other major difference is that because the postings are predictable, the content can be monitored and controlled by automation or by human beings. If something objectionable is posted, an ad can be pulled within minutes, he added.

What does this mean for bloggers? Will they feel compelled to censor user comments or brand-specific criticism in order to continue to attract ad dollars?

April 19, 2005

Another Media Company Engaged in Censorship

The New York Times reports:

The image planned for the anti-Wal-Mart billboard was unusual - a fire-breathing Godzilla standing next to the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge - and the language was strong: "The Wal-Monster will destroy Staten Island businesses and devastate our quality of life."

But New Yorkers may never see the billboard, which was supposed to go up on the island, because Clear Channel, the giant radio network that also runs an outdoor advertising company, has rejected it, saying its image and language are too inflammatory.

Officials of the labor union that was planning the message to help fight a Wal-Mart proposed for Staten Island yesterday accused Clear Channel of improper censorship, asserting that the company was taking pains not to offend Wal-Mart Stores, the country's largest company.

December 17, 2004

5th Cir: Union Yes Button Okay in Workplace

Finally, a good First Amendment case involving a real person asserting an important right! The case involves a hospital worker who wore a "Union Yes" pin.

Law.com reports:

...the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 opinion has ruled that the (Ector County) hospital district violated Urbano Herrera's First Amendment right to free speech.

His supervisor disciplined Herrera, a carpenter at Medical Center Hospital, after he wore the button in violation of the hospital's dress code. Herrera was an organizer for the Communication Workers of America (CWA), according to the 5th Circuit's Dec. 1 opinion in CWA and Herrera v. Ector County Hospital District, d/b/a Medical Center Hospital.

Herrera had refused to remove the button, telling his supervisor: "I'm not going to take it off. If you want it off, then you take it off."

According to the opinion, he took the button off after his supervisor made him read a copy of the hospital's dress code, which contains a non-adornment provision that prevents employees from wearing such insignias. But Herrera put the button back on after consulting with the CWA, which told Herrera his supervisor could not require him to remove it. He then had another confrontation with his supervisor...

December 02, 2004

CBS, NBC Reject Great Religious Ad

Those bastions of free speech, the television networks, are barring a UCC advertisement that they find too controversial. You can watch the advertisement here. If they only applied this level of skepticism of the arguments in the UCC spot to their other commercials (bullshit informercials, etc.), there wouldn't be any commercials at all on CBS and NBC.

The Washington Post reports:

The CBS and NBC television networks have rejected an advertisement for the United Church of Christ that shows two beefy bouncers turning away a gay couple, a Latino woman and a disabled man outside a church.

Officials of the Cleveland-based denomination, which has nearly 6,000 congregations and 1.3 million members, said the 30-second ad is intended to emphasize its inclusiveness. "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we," the ad says.

In a written explanation to the church's ad agency, CBS linked the ad to the issue of same-sex marriage and said it does not accept advertising "on one side of a current controversial issue of public importance."

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups . . . and the fact that the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the Networks," it said...

"If the church wants to say they are inclusive and open, that's a very positive statement that we are very happy to have on the air," said Alan Wurtzel, NBC's head of broadcast standards. "These folks are giving the impression that NBC is anti-church, anti-religion, anti-gay. It has nothing to do with that."

The problem with the bouncer ad, Wurtzel said, is that it "throws down the gauntlet at a variety of unnamed other churches" that allegedly do not accept gays or minorities. "It violates a long-standing NBC policy, which is that we do not accept commercial advertising that deals with issues of public controversy," he said.

So let me get this straight--an advertisement on an issue of public importance is controversial, especially because a Constitutional amendment has been proposed on the issue. Would these networks also bar ads on flag burning (an amendment on that issue is introduced in every Congress)? One thing is for sure, CBS and NBC don't reject totally crass normal commercials for Pepsi or whatever. Ads are only controversial when they ask you to think.

Update FAIR has an excellent discussion of this issue here.

September 24, 2003

Who Owns the Airwaves?

PR Watch reports that the Center for Public Integrity has created a database showing the ownership of every media, cable, and telephone company in the country:

Curious about who owns your local media, telephone and cable company? This searchable database contains basic information on every radio and television station in America as well as every cable television system and telephone company. You may search by company, by call sign or by area. Searchers will find basic information on some of the most important telecommunication companies, including a brief corporate profile and basic financial information.

September 17, 2003

Flashpoints USA: Can You Trust the Media?

Wow! This rather provocative full-page ad was run in the Washington Post yesterday to annouce Flashpoint USA's new episode on The Media Today: Truth or Lies.

I've been on Flashpoints. It's an intelligent show, run by two television anchors who are smart and who have a commitment to civil liberties and democratic norms.

September 13, 2003

Nike, Commerical Speech, and the First Amendment

Lawrence Tribe and other prominent First Amendment lawyers are quick to act when the speech interests of big business is threatened. But where are these lawyers when expression is threatened in the workplace, in schools, or when the D.C. Police wrongfully arrest 400 IMF protestors?

November 06, 2001

Free as in Freedom

We devoted a lot of attention to protecting our economy from 9/11. What attention was paid to protecting our free expression?

October 31, 2001

WTO Deplores Them

The WTO "deplores" this website, which is a "nuisance for serious users looking for genuine information."

August 21, 2001

IMF/WB in DC

The DC Government is worried about IMF/WB protesters. But, are they really that dangerous? I mean, do you think that they would be willing to cut off their own penises and testicles in protest?