Comments

Steve/Tom - I see this more as a sign of our times in that USA Today, the NYTimes, the Washington Post, Newsweek, Time-Warner, and other "major media" outlets - have ZIP, NADA, ZERO credibiltiy with any reader with an IQ over 90. Granted we may check out these publications for their coupons.

"Major media" has taken the editorial to the front page and called it "reporting". Notice 60 Minutes Wednesday [disgraced Dan Rather] has been cancelled. Newsweek may be next [hopefully].

BP and others have a right to put their best brand forward without a Naziesque totalitarian "major media - reality" negative spin on all they do? There is too much media supply these days and not enough demand - so for media anything goes to get your Tequila attention and sell advertising and spamalot?

Posted by Sean at May 24, 2005 9:15 AM

More than ever it's going to take guts to be honest.

With so many publications vying for ad revenue it’s a rare thing to find an objective trustworthy news source - the latest from GM and BP illustrate that point well. Our Government has been busted so many times with its thinly veiled propaganda that even those who want to believe don’t. Icons of broadcast and print news have been tarnished again and again. Who do we believe?

Bloggers and GE. More and more we’ll be on the hunt for those opinion leaders who have little to gain from deception. That includes intelligent, informative blog sites like this one and transparently motivated companies like GE. Can you think of any other trusted sources?

Posted by Bruce DeBoer at May 24, 2005 9:59 AM

Bruce, that's a great topic of discussion. WHO do you trust?

My ultimate answer would be to look no farther than our currency to see the only one who deserves our total trust.

Outside of that (and personal relationships), who do I highly trust? My mechanic, my boss, Eugene Peterson, a handful of bloggers... hmmm, short list.

Posted by Dustin at May 24, 2005 10:16 AM

Ironically Dustin I did a post about 'Trust' on my own Blog today.

We should always 'trust' the staff at the front line.

My mantra is

‘Staff at the front line know all the answers, all the time’

But I am prone to the odd exaggeration :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 24, 2005 10:36 AM

Reagrdless of whether you believe the media is biased in one direction or another, I personally see this as a bit self serving on the part of BP and others who are taking this position. I also think they are being very nieve about how people get their news and information.

I fully believe the media needs to be as independent as possible and not beholden to either politicians or advertisers whims and desires. The idea of corporations trying to control what the media reports is also a somewhat scray idea in and of itself.

With the proliferation of blogs, truly independent media outlets and access to reams of accurate information, aren't BP and others really just burying their heads in the sand with regards to the way the world gets information today? If there is some story they don't want the world to hear about, chances are that if one media company doesn't cover it because of a threat to with hold ad dollars others will.

The true synic in me also thinks this is a way for these companies to justify cutting their ad budgets.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at May 24, 2005 11:41 AM

Looks like this may be a progression of the downward spiral of print media. 1st is their loss of readership (which continues), now advertisers are dictating editorial content... what's next? If advertisers start pulling out, they can't afford to lose readers to higher subscription rates.

Looks like the development of a vicious cycle.

Posted by Dustin at May 24, 2005 12:01 PM

This also makes for an even more short term focus.

One of the major roles of the media, historically, has been to spark and foster debate. Coverage of many issues has started with an initial report, perhaps full of inaccuracies or errors, which then over time is reacted to, corrected, and refined getting a bit closer to "the truth" but also importantly fostering public knowledge of and debate about the issues (and the facts).

If we are entering an era when most media from the blogosphere (see Apple's lawsuit) to major newspapers and magazines to TV think only of the immediate, short term, initial reactions to everything they write about - then we are unlikely to see ongoing support for investigative research, or coverage of anything which can not both be simplified to a single story and vetted by advertisers. Small bastions may remain in the publications supported by foundations or interested groups (Mother Jones, Unte, New Yorker on the Left, other publications on the right) but their circulations are a far cry from the New York Times or the reach even now of Network TV news.

Shannon

Posted by Shannon Clark at May 24, 2005 12:23 PM

Guess that's BP off the list of companies I do business with - fortunately I live in an area where BP gas stations aren't part of the neighbourhood's fixtures and fittings.

Oh, and I'll be avoiding them when I drive down to Cornwall when I'm on holiday in a couple of weeks time too!! Their loss, not mine...

Cheers

Keith

Posted by Keith Rickaby at May 24, 2005 12:50 PM

The problem isn't business the problem is the media. Their ad space will sell with or without BP. The problem is the "free press" wants to have their cake and eat it to.

On the one hand they want to educate, inform, bash whomever they like; but they still want to be able to take money from the folks that they're taking shots at.

If the "free press" were all that free they'd tell BP to take a hike and sell their ad space to the next taker (maybe for less, maybe a smaller ad buy, maybe a little more work). Does anyone really think the space wouldn't sell?

What they're trying to do is earn their credibility with the public by doing the "tough story/editorial/taking the tough stand" - but then trying to keep their pockets stuffed with cash by shaming the businesses who are saying that I'm not going to support someone who slams me.

Is it really that "shameful" for BP to say "Look if you're slamming me in an issue I'm not going to advertise with you in that issue?"

Posted by steve at May 24, 2005 1:13 PM

I don't think it is shameful for BP to say that. But maybe these decisions should be made based on a publication's history of stories, not each article. If a publication repeatedly bashes BP, they should pull out altogether, not just once. Surely they could live without it.

Here's my issue: This seems to be setting up for a scenario where corporations that advertise in a publication will approve/disapprove content. Not just stories about themselves, but stories about their competitors. Then magazines and rags become clearinghouses for corporate propaganda (like too many industry pubs).

This is not a huge issue if BP is one of the few to take this course of action, but what if it becomes standard within all Fortune 500s? Then national/international publications now longer can straddle the fence of journalism and advertising. You have to discern whether a statement came from journalistic reporting or a corporate board room.

Maybe we should have been asking that all along?

Posted by Dustin at May 24, 2005 1:45 PM

Question the media - not the busines!

Of course the business is going to act in it's own selfish interests. Of course they're going to try to sway opinion. Of course they're going to pressure the media not to speak about them in a way that is against that self-interest.

The "free press" media has to decide where they're going to draw the line and when they're going to cave into pressure. How about the "free press" media tries something really novel and approaches the business and says "look we're not comfortable taking money from you in this issue because it might cast a shadow over our credibility since we're doing X story."

Now wouldn't that be novel. Where does the burden of taking the higher moral ground really lie here?

With the business that's trying to generate huge profits and market value or the media outlet trying to provide independent reporting?

The problem is that too often the focus for the media is as much on the profit as it is in the reporting.

Posted by steve at May 24, 2005 4:49 PM

Maybe I'm not getting what you're saying, because I'm usually in agreement with you. Are you saying BP is no angel, but it is the media's fault it got to this point to begin with? If the media wasn't more preoccupied with their advertising dollars than they are with reporting the truth, then this would not be such an issue?

I might agree with you if it weren't for BP's zero-tolerance policy requiring them to be notified even if the article is addressing competitors or the industry at large. That seems to cross the line... isn't that the title of this post? I say question the media AND the business.

Posted by Dustin at May 24, 2005 5:42 PM

Business has been directly or indirectly controlling the media for decades. Anyone who has ever worked in magazine and newspaper publishing (or advertising) will know this. It's obvious the world over. It's particularly glaring in the USA.

BP isn't interested in the the moral position (or the concept of the free press). BP is interested in maximising its profits any which way it can. That is, until it gets caught being unethical.

Does the US have an independent advertising standards authority, or some other regulatory body, like we have in the UK? It's up to the government or the courts to intervene, as they do in cases involving anti-competitive behaviour. It can't be left to private business to self-police and self-regulate on such important issues. Nor can we leave it to the general public to separate fact from fiction in editorial and reportage. Too many people already believe what they read wiithout question.

Posted by Matt at May 25, 2005 4:11 AM

Please God don't let the government jump into this fight. I'm not aware of how they do it in the UK but I don't think our problem is a lack of government involvement. I'll welcome the government into this battle when the streets are all drivable, our kids are all well educated, our borders are all safe and the military has no conflicts to deal with.

My question about BP crossing the line is simply - what line? I can't honestly see how BP has crossed a line by using their advertising dollars as a carrot for the publishers. Now if BP were to start impeding shipments of the magazine to the stores I'd say they crossed the line.

If my favorite restaurant starts having guest speakers coming in with a message that I don't like am I crossing the line to ask them (because we've got a long standing relationship) to let me know when these speakers are going to be there so I can eat somewhere else? Am I restricting their freedom of speech or ability to promote their restaurant? Of course not - I'm simply making a decision on how and where I'm going to spend my dollars.

If I can do that why can't BP? They haven't been caught bribing the editors or buying off reporters. The story is them saying if you talk about X in your magazine I don't wish to advertise. No lines crossed in my opinion and if anyone is up in arms about this because it compromises journalistic integrity that's a pretty strong comment on our opinion of how high that integrity was being held to begin with.

Posted by steve at May 25, 2005 11:57 AM

Steve, I've been reluctant to jump into this one because I've been commenting so often lately, but I've got to tell you that your comment on BP crossing the line is disgracefully and outrageously bang on the money! It's refreshing to hear such sound common sense spoken so clearly.

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 25, 2005 4:30 PM

This is just another example of OIL in control. We will never know what happened in VP Cheney's energy meetings (Enron, et al) before we invaded Afganastan (securing pipeline rights) and Iraq (secure oil, oil business, and resolve Bush Sr.'s mess). How tragic for all those innocent people (soldiers and locals) dying in the middle east - that's real 'life'.

OIL is still working behind the scene and winning - politics or advertising. We need to hear about these kinds of 'deals' being made so we personally can make better decisions.

GE took a leadership roll. OIL still denies global warming.

It is all about trust. Unfortunately, too many people are simply too lazy to look beyond the veneer. I appreciate the perspectives that these discussions and information enable.

Cheers to all who care!

Posted by DougE at May 27, 2005 11:56 AM

I agree that BP should be free to put their advertising revenues wherever they see fit... and they have performed (in financial terms) very well over the last few years... BUT here in the UK they have a bit of a reputation for being one of the more ethical (at least attempting to be) companies... Lord Browne cuts a good role model in many ways... so, it is with absolute disgust that i read tom's comments regarding BP and the media... i am disgusted not with tom but with BP (if the allegations are, in fact, true)..

to repeat, they have a right to place their ads wherever they want... they have NO right to attempt to 'bully' 'blackmail' 'hijack' media into not reporting unfavourable stories about them or their industry.. to do so makes a complete mockery of BP's so called ethics...

i believe this may well blow up in their faces and i hope it does.. so come on you internet free speechers, start a campaing against this disgraceful manipulation (yes we know it goes on in other places)... i call on you not to just accept this or to turn a blind eye...

make your views known to BP to the free media and encourage a full blooded campaign against them (and their likes) on this issue..

Posted by Chairman at May 28, 2005 8:07 AM

Alternatively, we can choose to recognize that:

a). BP is breaking no law in exercising its right to spend its advertising dollars as it sees fit,

b). requesting advance editorial information and choosing whether or not to advertise based in part on the editorial content does not amount to 'media hijacking', 'blackmail' or 'bullying', and

c). what is important is the development of alternative sources of sustainable energy.

I think BP's advertising policy is a non-issue.

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 28, 2005 9:35 AM

BP's policy is a non-issue for BP. It is the publisher that is supposed to enforce a wall between editorial and advertising. As a publisher, I wouldn't notify any advertisers of my editorial content. They would be free to pull their ads. I won't miss them. And, Their action would be news, not only in my publication, but in every publication. Their action would reduce their reach and their influence.

The BP policy implies that every time I see a BP ad, I should consider that publication compromised. And, I will. Every ad indicated collusion and interference in the editorial side of the business.

The editorial side of the business pulls the audience and establishes ad rates. Keeping my audience is how I make my money. Appeasing advertisers is not how I make my money.

In the recent consolidation of competing city newspapers, circulation manipulation has been replaced with monopoly solely for the purpose of maintaining or increasing ad rates.

Post boom, you saw technology focused publications reduce page counts for the same effect. Less editorial, less ad space, more revenues. I don't need any particular advertiser. And, if that advertiser isn't getting the audience in their buy, then they shouldn't advertise in my publication. So where are they going to turn, when no one will accept their ad terms? No one should.

Posted by David Locke at June 1, 2005 1:23 AM

David, if you have $800,000 to spend on an advertising campaign, it is only good business sense to choose to advertise in publications that have no plans in the issue you're thinking of advertising in to run a negative editorial line against your company. Every company runs its advertising campaigns based around this logic. Any advertising company will tell you that if you run spots on, for example, a morning news show, and discover after the event that the show featured editorial content that went against the product you were advertising, you're perfectly entitled to claim a refund for those spots. This is the way the business works.

As for considering publications compromised that feature BP ads, it could also mean that the publication just had no plans in that issue to run a negative editorial line on BP. Not every publication is out to nail BP all the time.

If your concern is for journalistic integrity, that in my view has more to do with lazy and sensational ratings grabs than pandering to the whims of advertisers.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 1, 2005 1:46 AM

interesting discussion folks... as i said before i agree that BP must be able to spend their advertising money wherever they see fit (i would protect this right for ever)... they do not have the right to "influence" any media content whatesover...

more importantly, seems that some others have taken my heed seriously... and i am aware that some very clever investigations are now taking place.. the outcome of which i think is likely to be "broadcast" far, wide and very loudly.. i look foward to hearing of these findings...

i would like to ask all those contributint to this blog thread to unambigously state any relationship they may have with BP, or with the Oil industry, or with any of it's advertising publications... i hereby formely state that i have no relationship with BP, the Oil industry, or any of the media...

we await a response to this blog with great interest..

many thanks.

Posted by Chairman at June 1, 2005 9:04 AM

I never like casting doubt on conspiracy theories. After all, Santa and the tooth fairy are the biggest conspiracies we've got and who'd want to dash them?! On this occasion however, I am forced to say that it doesn't logically follow that if someone supports BP's right to have an advertising policy, they must in truth be on BP's payroll.

Chairman, let me assure you that I am not in the pay of the infidels, BP, nor do I have any relationship whatsoever with them, unless you consider those times when I pull into a BP garage and fill my tank with overpriced unleaded.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 1, 2005 9:55 AM

Ditto for other oil or petroleum companies, advertising agencies, PR shops, network television stations, newspapers, Howard Stern, car manufacturers, cuddly toy manufacturers, greeting card distributors, McDonalds, the FBI, the CIA, the NYPD and the Vatican.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 1, 2005 10:06 AM