Subject: FW: [eauclairewib] Leader Telegram Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:41:18 -0600 Message-ID: <376546015E56D640AB10F112B8127DDF03D9B7E2@PEPSI.uwec.edu> From: "Weil, Michael R." <weilmr@uwec.edu>
Still, is use of the sleeve with derogatory language ethical? I can't
get on to today's online front page so don't know if the ad is
appropriate or not.
What if any difference is there in yesterday's sleeve and
today's ad?
How many people will have voted today before the online ad will
be seen? The timing of yesterday's sleeve was intentional and low.
Lots of research would have been done by the NRA and GOP to recognize
the impact the sleeve would have on voters.
Is the form in which the sleeve ad was used more egregious and
derogatory? Do we want our local paper to become more responsible? It
isn't about tit for tat but about mudslinging and ethics in advertising
Mary Weil
________________________________
From: sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu
[mailto:sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu] On Behalf Of Hale, C. Kate
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 11:57 AM
To: Richmond, Rick; SFPJ
Subject: Re: [eauclairewib] Leader Telegram
Wow-so it does. (Of course . . . .what's the
"circulation" of the on-line? Not that the L-T would choose one for
real/one for virtual circulation) Good catch, Rick.
I'm still not subscribing.
On 11/7/06 11:53 AM, "Richmond, Rick"
<rrichmon@uwec.edu> wrote:
I hate to be in the position of defending the
L-T- since I much prefer VolumeOne for local news, but today's online
edition (http://www.leadertelegram.com) displays an anti-Ron Brown ad on
the front page (possibly below the virtual fold).