December 18, 2008


Heh, this is rich. Apparently The Washington Post is selling classified ads to welcome the Obamas to the White House and has specified that they will only accept positive, glowing ads.

My favorite comment on this blog post:

It is only fair that WaPo post only positive comments for the winner of the election, after all, they did the same for Mr. Bush right? If John McCain had won, everyone knows they would have done the same for him too. I am also certain no liberals would have had a problem with that either and would have defended their decision. I am also certain McCain would have been Times 'Man of the Year' had he won, as well. That is why he was on the cover just as much as Obama was. Therefore, they are completely objective. People need to realize the myth of media bias is just silly.

Case closed.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:58 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The WaPo is not a government paper. It doesn't have to be "fair." This is not "censorship," contrary to one of the commenters. The WaPo can print whatever it wants, including prOpaganda. So I agree with the first comment: About time WAPO concedes that they abandoned objectivity! I don't expect any, because no media source can possibly be "fair" to all of us, or represent a consensus whenever none exists. The "congratulatory" requirement may also imply that the WaPo is aware of a very vocal opposition. If anti-Obama sentiment were not as strong, they wouldn't need to include the requirement, as they'd only get a few negative ad submissions and even fewer people complaining that their ads weren't included. But such sentiments are intense, and excluding the requirement would result in a flood of negative ad submissions and protests. The potential additional revenue would not make up for the bad publicity.

Posted by: Amritas at December 18, 2008 07:20 AM (+nV09)

2 I agree with Artitas that this is not "censorship"; however, the WP is owned by a public corporation which has fiduciary responsibilities to its shareholders, and to the degree that the paper's commercial decisions are motivated by the personal political opinions of its officers and employees, I think legitimate questions can be reaised about whether it is fulfilling those responsibilities.

Posted by: david foster at December 18, 2008 10:17 AM (ke+yX)

3 Good points, David. But how many conservatives own shares of The Washington Post Company? If the shareholders are predominantly liberal, isn't the WP "fulfilling [its] responsibilities"? I'm not that upset by the WP's decision because I doubt that ads for Obama will make many new cOnverts. I'd be more concerned about front page reality distortion posing as "news."

Posted by: Amritas at December 18, 2008 11:00 AM (+nV09)

4 Amritas...remember, the company is chartered "for purposes of pecuniary gain and profit" or similar language. Thought experiment: suppose that a public corporation decided to give 50% of its net income to the CEO's favorite charity...and suppose the majority of shareholders agreed. I suspect that the minority shareholders would still have a case for violation of fiduciary responsibility. I don't think this WP action rises to that level; indeed, it's probably reasonable, given that the ad section is for "congratulations," to ensure that the ads placed are really congratulatory. But I think much media-company behavior in recent years does raise the question of whether it is motivated by proper concern for shareholder financial interests. Any securities lawyers out there who would like to comment on this?

Posted by: david foster at December 18, 2008 12:09 PM (ke+yX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
42kb generated in CPU 0.0112, elapsed 0.0774 seconds.
48 queries taking 0.0706 seconds, 139 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.