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