4
Opinion
Page 8 Thursday, July 9, 1981 The Michigan Daily
The Michigan Daily
Vol. XCI, No. 36-S
Ninety Years of Editorial Freedom
Edited and managed by students
at the University of Michigan
--i
'Issue advertising'
a deceptive evil
By Edward Mandel, Jr.
4
4
A (surpri**ngly)
fair nomination
P RESIDENT REAGAN'S nomination of
Sandra Day O'Connor, to succeed Justice
Potter Stewart on the Supreme Court comes as
a surprise and a relief. Considering the incom-
prehensible damage he could have done by
nominating a right-wing ideologue-such as
many of his cabinet appointments-President
Reagan left many skeptics happily shocked by
the choice of Judge O'Connor.
The selection of a women is, obviously, ap-
pealing, however overdue. And there is great
expectation that her presence will add a needed
dimension to the otherwise all-male court. She
can significantly aid the beleaguered feminist
movement.
Yet this consideration is secondary to the
broader philosophical attributes that Judge
O'Connor possesses, and her across-the-board
recognition as a knowledgeable, rational, and
above all, even-handed judicial leader. Her
career as a senator and Appeals Court judge in
Arizona has been marked by diligence and
drive, combined admirably with a pleasant,
impassive disposition. She displays ambition,
but not blind ambition.
The nominee is hardly liberal, though her
conservative record suggests a moderate,
case-by-case approach, and she clearly has
demonstrated a knack for separating political
and judicial concerns. Her presence on the
court (which is virtually assured, a pathetic
opposition effort by Jerry Falwell and com-
pany notwithstanding) should bring it slightly
closer to the right, as she replaces a noted cen
trist. But fears of a reactionary surge on the
court appear unjustified; Judge O'Connor looks
to be above such a dubious course, and may
even act to prevent one in the future.
Indeed, the future is the critical con-
sideration. With at least three brethren nearing
retirement on the Supreme Court, there will
doubtless be further nominations by the
president, and these will be of optimal
significance for the nation. Perhaps, as the
cynics suggest, President Reagan is merely,
appeasing the left and center witn tnis one,
elevating his popularity before laying some
hardcore conservatives on us later. Time will
tell.
For now, there is reason for relief, not simply
at the nomination of Judge O'Connor, but by the
avoidance of the alternatives. She's the best we
could have realistically expected.
Ten years ago, it could not be
found on television and was
rarely used in publicatons. Ap-
parently the American consumer
could be easily had by the soft
sell, and thus it was not needed.
Times have changed though.
The American consumer has
grown up. No longer are adver-
tisements accepted at face value.
In fact, some advertisers, such
as the oil companies and public
utilities, are not trusted at all.
This had led to a dramatic
change in the way these com-
panies try to project an image to
the public. Now these companies
employa strategy known as issue
advertising. Over the last five
years this type of advertising has
increased in all the major forms
of the media.
Issue advertising is when a
corporation airs its opinion on a
current issue 'through the mass
media. To the apathetic receiver
of this message, it does not even
seem that the advertiser is trying
to sell us sometime. The message
almost comes across as a public
service announcement.
One case in point is when Bob
Hope, a perfect example of
prestige selling, tells us Texaco is
doing all it can to siphon the oil
out of shale so America has the
energy it needs.
This could easily lull the con-
sumer into believing that he has
nothing to worry about because
those swell guys from Texaco are
concerned about our energy
needs. Obviously though, if one
can accept the recent findings of
the Opinion Research Cor-
poraton, a majority of Americans
not only do not mind, but actually
want to be subjected to corporate
propaganda.
In an ad that can be found in a
recent issue of the Columbia
Journalism Review, Mobil Oil
uses the statistics culled from the
survey by the Opinion Research
Corporation to show that 85 per-
cent of the American public
thinks corporations should be
allowed to present their views on
controversial matters in TV
commercials.
They go on to cite that 89
percent of the TV stations sur-
veyed by the Television Bureau
of Advertising say they are
willing to accept advocacy adver-
tising. Of course they are. As the
head of General Motors once
said, "The business of America is
business." And it is not good
business to turn down lucrative
ads.
The real issue is not whether
television or newspapers want to
collect advertising revenue from
these corporations, out whether
the ads should be run in the first
place.
No, I have not forgotten about
the First Amendment. Neither
did 85 percent of the American
public when asked if corporations
have the right to share their
views with millions of people
through television.
What I do question are the
ethics of corporations, with
assets in the billions of dollars,
which buy media space for the
purpose of self-serving editorial
matter that usually claims to be
in the public interest, but is
always motivated by profit.
Instead of trying to slip their
message by us as a football team
would call a reverse to fool the
opposition, big business has
decided to run their views at us in
the hope of gaining our con-
fidence a little at a time. The o1'
three yards and a cloud of dust
theory.
Just because Mobil, AT&T and
America's Electric Energy Com-
panies have the capital to force
their views on us does not mean
that the mass media must accept
all their issue advertising. They
should be allowed a certain
amount of discretion in regards
to the ads they run.
Selling oil and gas is one thing,
ideas another. To allow these
conglomerates unlimited access
to influence public opinion is a
bad precedent. Especially when
they will most assuredly put their
interests above that of the
average citizen.
Under the guise of performing
a public service, issue adver-
tising is selling us the doctrine of
big business. This is their First
Amendment right. Personally, I
believe that the 500 million
dollars spent annually on this
type of advertising could be put to
better use.
Edward Mandel is a Univer-
sity student majoring in com-
munications.
4
4
4
4
Feiffer
MVq FEd A 't : O 01: E8°(W '"m-a6' 3() 6I3 7w 5SIXTES S 0 10'E63 i~EVEvrtss
NAMERICANuS HAVlE' ANFRICA63 PRFAH tor 105TrooeILL-- C RxEIEFtW(63TV
LiS iJ 'p ceree Tao: IWIFF 63iW 'M '-O BELIEV63 IW 'W AkItM3 m GRAM FA6P
QsroTo (3 ASIC ~u- FoVioT -MWAr SOVE F E-resr AIAv
Gt0tiG, rITS PLAID) COH" 50 ~A5 A $76P kFSSSF' t51zeaj 0ppt -5rW'HWF
k AL~AI6A~kec
C UCS36 -ISF 2 f I I IAsflsjOWOS, rwfW0ws",-
4
4