The Atlantic Mocks Digg For Having BP As A Sponsor... In An Article Sponsored By Exxon
from the pot,-kettle dept
There was some attention last week, to the fact that Digg had apparently allowed BP to step in as a sponsor on the site -- and I do admit that, at a first pass, the image presented does not look good:
The deaths, the images of oil-soaked birds, and the enormous environmental and economic tragedy they symbolize, are deeply painful. For people above a certain age, they likely trigger traumatic memories of another gigantic and horrifying oil spill, when the captain and crew of the Exxon Valdez tanker crashed in waters off Alaska and spilled millions of gallons of oil into the ocean.However, he then notes that the very same Atlantic article which mocks Digg for taking money from BP... happens to have been sponsored by Exxon:
At times, we've had the same sort of debate here. Do we take advertising money from companies we disagree with over certain things? There's one argument that says that you should never agree to allow advertising from a company you disagree with. The flip-side might be that if a company you don't like wants to give it's money to you, perhaps you can put their money to much better use. In the end, I tend to view it in the same manner as I view censorship of unpopular speech: I'd rather let everything be out in the open, clearly stated, rather than trying to suppress views.
When I was in Germany recently, speaking at an event, a German guy in the audience got up and read aloud a comment on Techdirt that said less-than-nice things about Germans, and demanded to know why I had not deleted the comment (noting that, under German law, I was legally responsible for those comments). Beyond the ridiculousness of German law that puts the liability on third parties for others' speech, I noted that free speech means allowing free speech for all -- and if that includes ignorant speech, it's better to let that ignorance out into the open where it can be countered and responded to, rather than trying to hide it and delete it. I said that blocking or simply deleting such speech only reinforces the ideas of those who make such speech that they're saying something so "truthful" the world can't bear to hear it. I don't think that pushes the conversation forward.
Now, obviously, advertising is not the same kind of "speech" as discussed in the paragraph above, but there is something to be said for allowing companies to advertise in an open manner, and allowing the discussion to then occur, even about that advertising -- something Digg tends to encourage openly. It's been said that the best response to speech you don't like isn't censorship, but more speech -- and I would argue that applies to advertising as well. Now, I'm sure some will cynically say that, of course anyone who accepts advertising will want to accept whatever ads they can to make money. But I think that sites like Digg, which have been pretty careful not to go down the road of really annoying advertising, show that they won't just do anything for money.
Plenty of newspapers who covered the BP oil spill -- including the NY Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal -- all accepted advertising from BP in the wake of the spill. I didn't see any sanctimonious articles condemning any of them for doing so. It may be tempting, at a gut level, to suggest this is somehow "wrong," but I think I'd rather BP was out there trying to talk to people -- and letting the people talk back -- than being told it can't spend its money that way at all.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: advertising, conflicts, ethics
Companies: bp, digg, exxonmobil, the atlantic
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mimi & Eunice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your thoughts on free speech and advertising
Chas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People have the right to be upset about those things, and if it shrinks the propaganda capability of a horrible company that showed no respect for the public I think it is a good thing that some get upset about, because that shows it is not going to be that easy to recapture the public confidence.
BP is not a company that is in the positive side of the hearts and minds of people right now and their actions speak for themselves they tried to cover up as much as they could and to this day people are being harassed for tried to get information, this is not an open company trying to do the right thing here they only did it because of public pressure, this are people who don't believe they should apologize and take responsibility it is not in their culture to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deleting Comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deleting Comments
Jon Newton over at P2PNet has the solution for that. He just deletes all the replies as well. All traces of any comments he disagrees with get wiped from the site. I can't even begin to guess how many delete keys he's worn out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BP backing of stories I find questionable
Small problem Mike. Before during and after the people are not "talking back." at the very least it seems that only one side is being told. I don't know why I followed this story so closely but this may help paint a clearer picture.
See the following:
10 Things You Need (But Don't Want) To Know About the BP Oil Spill
Deepwater Horizon survivors allege they were kept in seclusion after rig explosion, coerced into signing legal waivers
And its not just BP, even the Whitehouse has there finger in it. White House 'Blocked Gulf Oil Spill Studies'
And this one... well perhaps deserves a followup. BP buys top Google search result for 'oil spill'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wish you would frame the above and send it to Jon Newton over at P2PNet. He goes into each set of comments with a mindset of "Let's see what I have to delete today..." On several occasions he's freely admitted to deleting batches of posts that he considers to be worthless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice
www.privacy-web.it.tc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BP spill advertising
"One small step for advertising, one GIANT step toward dictatorship".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sponsors should not be influers
It is also important that developers of content and owners of website are not adjusting their work to suite the needs of their advertisers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"해외 토토 즐기실분 없으세요!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This is so true! And relevant to so much going on in America right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]