In Monday's New York Times there was a full page advertisement from the group Moveon.org that showed a picture of U.S. General Petraeus with the headline: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" Moveon.org is a political website/ organization that is focused on pro-active politics-- bringing the citizens back into the fight for justice. Needless to say, Moveon.org liberal organization.
Today, Tuesday, there is another full page advertisement in the International section of the NYTimes. This time however, the advertisement is from the political group: Freedoms Watch. Their slogan: "We are fighting a Gobal War Against Terrorism: Surrender to terrorists is not an option." And their ideals? Actually very similar: promoting the rights of the American individual; however, they are calling for a fight keep and protect American's rights-- and sometimes you have to go to war to protect them. Obviously, this organization is more conservative.
So where is the ethical issue? Well, there is one and then there isn't. What I am most intrigued is that a news service like the New York Times-- an establishment filled with journalists-- would choose to publish partisan advertisement. From working at the Foghorn, I understand that as long as they are objective with their advertisements and are willing to publish an ad promoting the other side of the story, then it's okay. But still, people are really "hung up" on the idea that Moveon.org decided to publish an advertisement (especially one that is quite blunt about the man who was testifying before lawmakers that day). Those same people seem as though they might hardly bat an eye for the company that is clearly pro-war. It seems as though advertisements like these only destroy the reputation of the newspaper.
In my understanding of what newspapers should be and what the role of journalists should be, is that they have the role to provide the facts to the readers; in turn, the readers make intelligent decisions. I know that the Times has been criticized in the past for being too liberal-- and for 24 hours, until the second advertisement was published-- this was all too true. On Monday, there was no objective advertising and now hundreds of thousands of right wing conservatives are up in arms.
I feel as though advertising, at least in mainstream media, should not be partisan to a particular movement or idea. First of all, an ad like in a newspaper immediately destroys the Potter Box because it immediately reveals loyalties and values. Furthermore, it seems to then contradict this idea that journalists, as far as the public is concerned, do not have political opinions. Thus, I feel as though that unless the two advertisements are run the same day and are given an equal weight then it is unethical for a newspaper to run a politically charged advertisement.
PS. Then, there is also the question of money and how much money dictates the newspaper-- a full page political ad in the New York Times costs $1,442. So then it does seem quite clear, at least to me, where the true allegiance lies. Money is money, even if it in turn contradicts the idea of opinion free journalism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
*Slippery slope* when you start denying groups the right to advertise. The lesson of the "duelling ads" would seem to be that if an ad seems outrageous to some, then whoever disagrees can speak back. This is a complicated issue, and your comment will drive me back to my textbooks. There are laws about truth in advertising -- though I think much, if not all, political speech is excluded. There are always issues of community taste. But almost always I will be on the side of the news organ if it chooses to accept an ad. From a practical or perhaps cynical point of view, I doubt many will be corrupted by an ad. The irony is that the Petraeus ad probably helped those it was intended to wound. Supporters of the war are quite delighted it ran, I'm thinking.
Post a Comment