Smoking and Advertising

Newsweek columnist Anna Quindlen used her column this week to criticize a cigarette brand and its advertising. She says the Camel 9 brand, packaged in black with hot-pink foil, is designed to rope in younger girls as cigarette consumers.
Earlier this year, New York Times ad industry reporter Stuart Elliott covered the launch of Camel 9, the positive reaction of investors and the company's move to market the "male" Camel brand to female consumers.
NPR also has a package on Camel 9 that's worth listening to.
Quindlen does a good job reminding us all that this is a legal product. Do the congressmen who knocked on magazine editors' doors to get them to eschew Camel 9 ads have a decent strategy? Is that one way to keep this brand from marketing to girls? Is it marketing to girls? If it's not, should ads be pulled or should women be allowed to decide whether they smoke and whether their brand is Camel 9? If you worked in an agency, what kinds of ethical decisions would you have to make in marketing products that are legal but reviled by some (cigarettes, liquor, guns, fast food, sugary drinks ... the list is getting longer)? Who are the stakeholders when we make ethical decisions in advertising?

Update on tape story

In a previous post, a 202er raised the issue of still images being posted of a girl abused in an explicit video. The victim has been found and is safe. Here's a link to the developing story. I remain interested in your thoughts on the decision by AP, CNN and other news organizations to show the girl's picture to aid in locating her.

An OJ story that interests me

I've pretty well established that I cannot stand the OJ Simpson story and the attention it's getting (I try to keep my opinions out of this blog but this one ... ugh).
In any case, the New York Times has an interesting piece on the hotel where OJ is said to have committed his infraction and their refusal to rent out the room in question. It strikes me as a nice moment of pride over profit.
How do you feel about "tragedy haunting"? Should the place Nicole Brown was killed be on a Hollywood tour map? Should Anna Nicole's suite be open to the public? Do the media promote this kind of voyeurism?

In the News

Let's take a different tack this week. I know what I'm reading about. You post a comment to tell me what YOU are reading, hearing and watching.

Ad controversy

The battle over body image in fashion opened another front in Europe. A controversial ad featuring an emaciated woman (caution: disturbing image in that link) is supposed to provoke conversation, but others have accused the company of trying to profit off the controversy.
What do you think? Do fashion advertising affect body image? Are most models too thin? Are advertisers responsible for the social impact of their messages? If so, does that apply to single messages or advertising as a whole? Go back to the first week of this blog and check out the post on a church's view of advertising and its "10 commandments." How does this square with that?

Covering College Athletes

You may have heard about a controversy this week in Oklahoma when a college football coach went on a tirade against a local reporter who had written a column critical of a student player. The reporter stands by her column.
One of Gundy's assertions is that the news media should stop treating college athletes like they're professionals when they're just kids. Do you agree? Should sports reporters aggressively cover college athletes? Give them a break based on youth? And why do you say that?

Listening in on the Phone for Ads

Wow, this may be the most significant privacy question with telephony since the NSA started listening in:
Company Will Monitor Phone Calls to Tailor Ads
What do you think of this? Would you use a service that listened in on your calls? Did you know that gmail does that with your e-mails? How would you feel if the government were doing it instead? (I, for one, am immediately suspicious of their claim that they won't save data about the calls. My response would be, "That's what you say ... for now.")

Facebook and Reporting

I have column out in the new edition of The American Editor from the American Society of Newspaper Editors, discussing the ethics of using Facebook to find information about crime and accident victims who have been killed.
I've discussed this with a bunch of you, many of whom have told me wrenching stories about losing young friends and seeing it play out on FB.
What do you think of this? Is it fair game for reporters? Does it weird you out? Feel voyeuristic? I'd love to read your comments.

Updates on Previous Posts

Some new stuff on things posted earlier:
1. The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson has a interesting twist on the Dan Rather lawsuit while the LA Times' Tim Rutten calls it "pathetic"
2. The New York Times screwed up ... and badly. Their ad rate for the controversial moveon.org ad was indeed grossly low (definitely fired a bullet into the foot of their credibility there and handed new ammo to the "liberal media" faction)
3. I referred you earlier to a book by Rajiv Chandrasekaran called Imperial Life in the Emerald City. He's coming to campus to deliver the J-School's Nafziger Lecture, 5 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 17, in the Pyle Center on Langdon. It's titled, "Iraq's Elusive Peace" (and yes, attendance does count for extra credit in 202)

Truthiness

Stephen Colbert coined my favorite word of the last 10 years: truthiness.
A few media orgs have started actually trying to decide whether a public statement is true (imagine that).
- the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly have launched Politifact to verify the claims of presidential candidates
- the Annenberg Public Policy Center at Penn has FactCheck.org
- the Washington Post has started a blog called The Fact Checker, with a reporter and researcher applying a "Pinocchio test" to public statements of interest (check out the post earlier this week on the "General Betray Us" ad)
Jack Shafer does a good job rounding them up in a new piece in Slate. Here's a bit of it:
Why can't the press drop the pretenses and call people who lie liars?
On the Media co-host Bob Garfield, exasperation filling his voice, asked that late last month on his show. Garfield's prime example of a public figure deserving the label was Alberto Gonzales.
"In the major institutions of the media, hardly a soul has invoked the term that best describes [Gonzales'] failure to tell the truth," Garfield said. "The word is lying."
So should the news media call a liar a liar? Who decides whether something is "true"? Check out some current controversies. Can we objectively say what is true and what is untrue? If it's a news organization's job to inform the public when someone is lying, what's taken them so long?

In the News

Here's some of what I've been reading about lately:
- moveon.org, "Betray Us" and New York Times ad rates
- Politics in Pakistan
- OJ Simpson (though I really wish I weren't reading about this ...)
- Fed rate cut
- Blackwater in Iraq
- protests in (and about) Jena
- Taser use in Florida
- notable polygamy trial
Quiz questions could come from these, comments you post or developments over the weekend.

Dan Rather Offended

Dan Rather is suing CBS. I must admit, I didn't see this one coming. I thought if he'd lash out in defense of his reputation, it would have been sooner. This one bubbled up unexpectedly.
At issue is a story CBS did on President Bush's service (or lack thereof) in the National Guard during Vietnam. Documents upon which the story was partially based were later deemed unverifiable, at best. An external investigation ensued, and Rather later retired ("in disgrace" would be too strong a term but certainly not with the acclaim one would have expected before the Bush story).
Is the suit worth it? Was his reputation damaged and if so, can he rebuild it by a suit like this? Does he damage his cause more by bringing the issues up again? What obligations do the news media have to verify information provided by a source?

Washington Post On Being

Yesterday a 202er asked me what I think is the "best of the Web." Hands down, the thing that captures that for me is a Washington Post online series called "On Being." It's just a person or pair answering questions directly to the camera that's deftly edited into a brief package. A new one goes up every Wednesday, and I have yet to not be blown away. Check it out today and every Wednesday.
In general, the Post blows me away online. Their "Being a Black Man" is definitely worth a look.
Locally, the State Journal has been behind but just got an award nomination for their Hip Hop 101 package.

Times Ad Acceptability

Interesting discussion in the New York Times today, with their director of advertising acceptability taking reader questions. The organization does these "Talk to the Times" sessions weekly. The timing of this appearance is perfect, with the controversy over the "General Betray Us" ad by moveon.org.
What is a newspaper's responsibility in accepting advertising? How likely are audience members to confuse the content of an ad with the opinion of the paper?

Hot for Teacher

Hardee's and Carl's Jr are in some hot water over a new ad showing a teacher dancing provocatively while students rap about "flat buns" for a burger. Check out a local news story here and view the ad on YouTube. The parent corporation has already pulled it, after a number of teacher organizations said it was offensive.
What do you think? Is it offensive? Are we taking things too seriously here? Does complaining about it generate a controversy that gives the ad much more attention via outlets like YouTube (and this handy blog)?

Discussion Arena

A 202-er sent this link in after reading about the offensive rape story in the Central Connecticut State University student paper that's posted to our discussion arena. The paper ran a comic strip that has again raised concerns:
NEW BRITAIN - The campus newspaper at Central Connecticut State University, which came under fire earlier this year for printing a satirical article extolling the virtues of rape, is the target of angry protests again after it printed a comic strip this week that made reference to locking a teenage Hispanic girl in a closet and urinating on her.
Check out the whole story.
What responsibilities do student editors have? Should university administration have the power to oust editors or writers? How do the papers here work (by the way, we're the only campus in the country with two daily student newspapers)? What recourse would you have if they published something that offended you? Should you have any recourse at all?

In the News

This morning, I'm reading about:
- the president's troop withdrawal plan
- New England Patriot woes
- apparent assassination in Anbar province
Anyone have more to add to the list?

Just Fake It

Well, you have media ethics issues and then you have MEDIA ETHICS ISSUES!!! Check out this coverage in the Washington Post, New York Times and ABC News of a French "reporter" who faked interviews with some of the most recognizable names in the world. We don't need another black eye.
The key question here is how journalism maintains its legitimacy when it's undermined from within.

Heartbreaking ...

Earlier this year, seven soldiers wrote a moving op-ed piece in the New York Times, arguing the U.S. was naive in its view that the war in Iraq is winnable. Editor and Publisher reports today that two of the seven were killed in Baghdad. The original piece moved me, and this news saddens me. I'd encourage you to go back and check it out. It's behind the Times' paid archive wall now, but you can easily get it free using Nexis via the . Just search for "The War as We Saw It" in the Times in August 2007.

Predator Update

The New York Observer has a new piece with more on the controversy over Dateline NBC's "To Catch a Predator" that I highlighted in a post last week. Find it here http://www.observer.com/2007/catch-catch-predator?page=0%2C0