Corporate Advertising and the MSM

I've been a bit disturbed by articles and blog entries like this one vilifying GM over its withdrawal of advertising from the LA Times.

Unsurprisingly, the editors of the LA Times are afraid of coming out with any sort of editorial or op-ed piece on the situation, but I'll say it instead: grow up, General Motors. Last I checked we lived in a nation that celebrated freedom of the press, the right for individuals to have and share their opinion and perspective with others, and a review, whether of a car or a motion picture, is inherently the subjective opinion of the writer and everyone knows that. Except, perhaps, some sensitive GM salespeople.[emphasis original]

This paragraph alone baffles me. They seem to be taking GM to task for removal of funding for advertising in the LA Times when GM objects to subjective opinions that are negative against their product. If the argument had been against GM for factual reporting, I'd have said they have a point.

The country does in deed have the freedom of the press, but it also has other freedoms that this blogger seems to be missing. Now, where a large company spends chooses to spend it's money isn't implicitly stated, but I'd wager that they do have a right to move it where they like. Last I saw this was still some what of a capitalist country.

Then there is the argument on financial pressure:

By pulling their advertising, GM is trying its darndest to breach that fifth wall, to apply pressure on the editorial team at the LA Times where it hurts most, in their income stream. Let's hope that the LA Times editorial team can stand up to the pressure and retain its editorial integrity.

Interesting. GM can indeed use its finances as pressure against the editorial staff. I don't see any problem with that. It's up to the editor to show sufficient integrity to make the correct decisions related to that pressure. If the truth is being used in reporting, then I don't see where they have any problems in letting the money go. But, since it's not about facts, but about opinions, they have a great deal more leeway in which opinions get used. If they fail to show integrity relating to real hard facts, that shows poorly on them, not on GM.

Remember, GM is a company that's primary purpose is to make money for it's share holders. Money is the primary driver in the MSM as well. Just as GM is required to make a safe (by law), enjoyable, (by market) and useful vehicle, the MSM is there to provide a product (news) that has integrity and balance. They aren't forced by regulations to be 100% factual. They can indeed have opinions which they can decide on what is appropriate. Just as what is useful and enjoyable is defined and controlled by the car market.

Morgan Stanley seems to be in a similar situation, which really does appear to be just bad timing.

The story, appearing Wednesday in Ad Age, said Morgan Stanley (nyse: MWD - news - people ) has told key publications it has new guidelines that would require its ads to be pulled whenever negative stories about the bank are about to be published.

This is fairly common practice in many large companies that the article calls "pull-adds." Essentially it is to pull adds when a substantially negative event occurs and will be reported against your advertising. Like Airlines pulling flight adds when there is a large air plane crash. Some interesting bits in the Morgan Stanley article.

There is a difference between MS and GM though. It is very obvious that GM is doing it for retaliation. They do have the right. But, it makes you wonder if they understood the negative contexts that that decision would bring about.