Ezra Klein: Morgan Stanley and BP are Terrible, No Good, Very Bad Investments

« The Impossible Has Happened | Main | At Long Last Sir -- Have You No Zingers? »

May 24, 2005

Morgan Stanley and BP are Terrible, No Good, Very Bad Investments

This trend of companies publicly articulating policies to pull all ads from any publication that publishes negative pieces on them is really quite scary. Fact is, we don't have a free press, we have a press that relies on the goodwill and involvement of advertisers. So long as they're dependent on an income source that wants to influence they're coverage, they're not free in any recognizable sense of the word. That said, they've generally been able to keep their advertising departments separate from their editorial sections, and their sponsors have accepted it. Apparently, the advertisers are changing their minds on that front, and if the trend continues, I'm not sure how much of the publishing industry will survive. Maybe future newspapers really will be online-only for the sole reason that the dirt-cheap production costs allow them to survive with radically reduced revenue streams.

Ah well. As Matt said the other day, I trust we can expect a flurry of bad press for Morgan Stanley and BP? I'll start: Fuck Morgan Stanley and BP. Sucky companies both.

May 24, 2005 in Media | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/2509135

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Morgan Stanley and BP are Terrible, No Good, Very Bad Investments:

» Retro Is Cool from nosey online
Corporate media control? It's almost as if Hollywood is coming to life. Just as long as I can get my Rollerball season tickets first. (And no, this IS NOT a reference to the cheesy 2002 version. I'm referring to the... [Read More]

Tracked on May 24, 2005 7:35:00 PM

» Sensitive Companies from CommonSenseDesk
Morgan Stanley and BP apparently are not happy with the press they are receiving. [Read More]

Tracked on May 24, 2005 7:42:15 PM

Comments

I don't really see a problem as long congress passes a law forcing media outlets to publish which advertisers have accepted or rejected an editorial. Kinda like in campaign commercials.

"This editorial has been approved by ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell"

Posted by: Thor's Hammer | May 24, 2005 5:27:38 PM

The 'wall' between business and editorial sides of magazines and newspapers has as much current substance as the Berlin Wall or the Iron Curtin. BP and E/M just have revealed their policy. This stuff happends all the time, usually after the fact of unfavorable coverage.

Whether pre or post really doesn't matter. Name some media outlet that makes enough money to cast aside advertising from a major buyer. The editors know this and act on this.

We complain about balance at NYT, WaPo, CNN, Fox, etc. Behind the lack of balance is the balance sheet and income statement of these media outlets. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking they could put out a story that major advertisers (or potential boycotters) would not like.

And don't forget that many advertisers don't want their company brand appearing in any media that is controversial even if they are not the subject of bad editorial content.

Cure? Blogs are becomming more advertiser dependent too, but still largely free to express opinions. It will be a long time before newspapers and magazines are supplanted by the internet, if ever.

There probably is no cure for media biased by advertisers in any society were corporate interests have significant control over the political and information apparatus.

A look at the advertisers appearing in The American Prospect, The New Republic, or Nation pretty much tells the story. The liberal/progressive/left will have a significant media voice only if it owns or controls the business structure of particular media outlets.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | May 24, 2005 8:06:54 PM

Is this any different from the standing order that ever single radio and TV station in the world has, that is, no commercials for airlines are run for 48 hours after a plane crash? The ads that are pulled are typically put into traffic the following week, and nobody really notices. One log entry for the board op, one less avail for traffic.

Posted by: bunny | May 24, 2005 10:21:14 PM

What a goofy post.
Freedom of the press means just that...not the inherent right to be funded by advertisers regardless of how they criticize them, and that is what you are arguing.

Posted by: Robert Zimmerman | May 24, 2005 10:43:11 PM

I'm sorry to see BP doing this -- they were the one oil company that acknowledged global warming.

Posted by: Ethical Werewolf | May 24, 2005 11:52:08 PM

Do you really think MS and BP used to happily send checks to media where they were portrayed negatively? Of course not! The only thing new about these policies is that they are admitting them. Transparency being generally venerated, I would think you'd be applauding them along these lines.

Posted by: Quiet Storm | May 25, 2005 1:27:52 AM

But hey, if you are BP and the U.S. government supports your projects all over the world by propping up authoritarian regimes in oil rich countries, then you might have a superiority complex too.

http://cntodd.blogspot.com/2005/05/azerbaijan-price-of-oil-pipeline.html

Posted by: cntodd | May 25, 2005 10:56:01 AM

BP is also the company that has had three oil spills in their Alaska operation this year that they conveniently forgot to report to federal authorities, not to mention the fact that their oil operations kill more workers every year than any other oil company.

They were never ethical.

Posted by: cntodd | May 25, 2005 10:57:29 AM

NYT/WaPo/etc are free to publish any print they like

BP/Mobil/etc are free to pay or to not-pay for that content

Readers are also free to read and propagate or ignore or dispute anything printed/said, from any outlet big or small

Yet still we look at NYT or TIME or FOX or CNN and collectively grant them the power of something called "objective authority", and get angry when that power is abused

Whose fault is that?

Posted by: the shreeking ape | May 25, 2005 12:02:14 PM

Ezra - you are the free press.

Posted by: Brew | May 25, 2005 4:36:13 PM

Hack had his own network of contacts, sources, experts, and operatives throughout the military. Even if a garrison commander might want to declare him persona non grata, Hack always found a way onto a base, into a tent, or in close proximity to the troops.teen fuck anime winamp movie trannies interracial candy free pics of bisexuals classic porn on dvd dvd porn videos free transexual movies asian femdom incest pic japan anime horny boyz transgender stories joe bates butt spanking how to have anal

Posted by: anal | Nov 10, 2005 10:43:51 PM

This is great! http://www.sissykiss.com sissy kiss

Posted by: Tiffany | Feb 1, 2006 5:52:09 PM

I am extremely disappointed with the way I have been treated with my account at Morgan Stanely. I was given no notifcation whatsoever that I no longer had my financial advisor. I found out recently only by mistake. Then I learned that my account was moved to some call-in center because my account was less than $5k when in fact it was above $5k and so I requested to go back where I was and was told that my branch was not taking anymore accounts. I asked to have my stock certificates issued to me and was told that the center was too busy to take my request and to call back later! I called this past week and learned that I was being fined for not maintaining a minimum balance quarterly. I was never informed of this fine(s) and asked to have them waived. I was told by the second person (Denise) that the minimum is $10k and that the other staffers were wrong in telling me it was $5k. I told Denise that I was not happy with how I am being treated and she didn't seem to care and I asked her if imposing fines without notification and giving out incorrect information was acceptable, she said I am not the only one with this issue! She would not waive the fines and so I asked her who I could ask and she told me she would forward my request to some place in Ohio. I have yet to hear back and I am still being fined for an account that Morgan Stanely opened with me. I have also made repeated requests to have my address corrected and I have yet to receive anything at my new address. It's obvious Morgan Stanely doesn't want my business..however, I don't think it is fair to penalize me all this time at no fault of my own. Had I been properly informed, I would have closed my account a long time ago.

Posted by: R | Feb 12, 2006 1:35:08 AM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘