BlogHer - media ethics - Comments

I actually missed the point of the ad

Kim Pearson — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:05:07 -0600

When i watched it, I thought it was about the benefits of developing children's potential and encouraging them to persist against obstacles. That reading probably reflects my own preoccupations. I think it's rather weak as a anti-abortion ad actually, unless it's the opening salvo in a series of messages. But as to the questions I raised, yes, Nordette, I think you make a strong point.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Hypocrites or smart enough to learn a lesson?

Nordette — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:22:41 -0600

The folks at CatholicVote and their supporters say CNN is being hypocritical because in 2005, they reportedly accepted an ad from NARAL that links then Chief Supreme Court Justice nominee John Roberts to abortion clinic bombers. According to Dunn, NARAL withdrew the ad after heavy criticism, but she adds: "I don't think John Roberts' permission was asked before that ad ran." I'm looking for a copy of the ad and documentation of the controversy.

If NARAL withdrew the ad after heavy criticism then perhaps CNN took the hint and won't run similar ads now. So, is it women can't have choices and neither may a company change its policies?

Nordette: BlogHer CE. Blogs @ WSATA & UMBOP. @Twitter

It does pass

crousehaus — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:21:59 -0600

the test in my eyes. But I'm a totally-biased pro-life democrat. Good thing I'm not running CNN:) Looking at it from my point of view, it's like, what is the big deal? It seems like a positive message. Doesn't show any disturbing images or crucify anyone for believing different. It's just putting the notion out there about what if. What if the person being aborted could go on to find a way to cure people who are quadrapalegic?

But to be fair, I could see how someone on the opposite side of the issue would see that it wouldn't be right for CNN to put the ad up. Just like I would hope CNN wouldn't run an ad that encouraged women to go and get an abortion if they are in a situation that wasn't the best to raise a child.

So, I'm conflicted at best. I wish there were a fair way to get the ad out to more people, because I'm sure most people want a reduction in the number of abortions (must reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies) no matter who they are.

Yup

Kim Pearson — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:45:16 -0500

Agree completely with you and all the other commenters. Of course, if we get to bring things back from that year, may I please have the energy level I had then? Much obliged.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

What a difference 40 years makes...

nelle2nelle — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:30:36 -0500

Lets be clear here. I've zero desire to find myself back in 1968, for a whole lot of personal and societal reasons.

Women were just beginning to to recover lost ground from the disaster period of 1930-1960 or so. I can recall classified ads for 'female help wanted.' You know what kind of jobs those were...

then there was the whole thing about living in a closet, that rather sucked.

A war, another sucky deal.

And that allows me to segue back to topic. That war was covered - and ended - in large part through the effort of media. Even with our streets full of our young outraged at the deal being handed them, it wasn't until Walter gave his infamous take on Vietnam in 1968 that we finally had mainstream America questioning the war.

Not 5 miles from here, 5 of our own came home in coffins, their vehicle struck a mine. My sister new a few of them, they were former co-workers. And in one of the most famous photographs (national in scope) of the war, the five flag draped coffins all lined up nice and neat, complete with honour guard, sat on the tarmac against a backdrop of bright blue sky. Surreal. Disturbing.

We don't allow those types of photos any longer. News departments have long since succumbed to the breakdown of barriers between entertainment and news. We are the poorer for it, but it surely leaves me thankful that NPR exists, a shining light in a bleak atmosphere.

Even with all of the resources at our disposal, it seems incredible that our news is being sanitised. With all we can do to chat it up, we still are cut off from much of the raw footage that might have been visible 40 years ago.

I've a friend - someone I work with on a tiny dyke board of technodyke refugees - spent 18 months as a reporter, plying the wartorn and stripped fields and jungles of Vietnam - unheard of in that day and age... but they let her go. And oh the stories she can tell.

We've acquired new means of communication, but we have not kept apace with the social evolution of using that media responsibly. Read that as organisations tasked to the delivery of newsworthy content to the greater body of households. We've backtracked. We've allowed it to be sanitised in favour of embedding. We've allowed presidential motorcade routes to be stripped of protesters in favour of smiling, flag waving supporters of the person riding by - all the better for viewing.

We have all of this media at our disposal, yet we have allowed our choices in news to be made by those who are not interested in social responsibility and the betterment of society, but rather in making that next dividend a bigger one.

I'll take a few things from back then, and add it to the many things of now. We'd be the better for it.

nelle

llhaesa

Straight Up Pathetic and Car Salesmen Move Up A Notch

Gena Haskett — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:27:34 -0500

Do you know how many plastic surgeons there are in Los Angeles? Um, I need to add that certain medical and legal professionals are allowed to advertise services in California.

Will they read from papers recycled from an eco-friendly paper producer? Will they continue to do in depth reporting on tanning salons but now name names as to the best ones that just happen to support the newscast?

And don't think PBS is going to let this go by for too much longer. They are already running ads before the program. Pledge breaks have long been advertorials for books and speakers.

Wrong, so wrong unless of course some of the hot weather guys get to dish the weather in Speedos.

Gena - Out On The Stoop

Shakes head

Nordette — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:34:40 -0500

Here's my question: what happens when it comes time to investigate the
company whose product is prominently displayed on the set?

That was my first thought.

Yet another reason to question so-called objective journalism.

I don't care for the product placement in our entertainment shows either. My offspring watch Smallville and the product placement in that show is so obvious the actors practically turn to the camera and say "Look what I'm holding!" Ugh. How can you suspend belief and escape to show's version of reality if the actors are reminding you that the production company has bills to pay?

How can we hold the belief that the news coverage we receive is accurate if pushing a brand of camera or coffee is placed on the same level as the news? Critical watching and reading will need to be full courses in all elementary schools if this keeps up.

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link.

Deceptive? Yeah, I'd say so...

zchamu — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:24:45 -0500

Especially when you consider the station displaying the "iced coffees" aren't really displaying coffee at all, but rather a brown liquid with fake ice cubes so that they won't melt during the broadcast. Ugh.

Visit my blogs at ThreeSeven (all that's irrelevant and amusing) and
ecochick (all that's green, cool and Canadian).