Subject: RE: [eauclairewib] Leader Telegram Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 08:58:58 -0600 Message-ID: <376546015E56D640AB10F112B8127DDF029A49B8@PEPSI.uwec.edu> From: "Wesenberg, Nancy Christine" <WESENBNC@uwec.edu>
Great argument about the t-shirt. N.W.
-----Original Message-----
From: sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu
[mailto:sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu] On Behalf Of Preston-Simon,
Elizabeth
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 3:35 PM
To: Weil, Michael R.; sfpj@listserve.uwec.edu
Subject: RE: [eauclairewib] Leader Telegram
I just got off the phone with the general manager, L-T. Very defensive,
explaining that the paid-for ad is clearly not endorsed by the L-T,
spent a lot of time trying to convince me to see his point-of-view.
I asked him, if you met me at a beach party, and I was wearing a t-shirt
that said "Bush-Cheney," would you think I was endorsing them? "Of
course," he answered. To which I replied, "But, perhaps my sister
handed me that shirt for the day because my luggage had been lost and it
was the only extra one she had with her. Don't you see there is an
implicit, spatial association between what is in a shirt and what a
shirt says, even when there is no explicit endorsement?"
He had to admit that he did see that, and my name--as well as many
others, which IS making the L-T uncomfortable, has been removed.
(I agree with others--we can view online, we can renew subscriptions
later, we can purchase at stores or borrow from friends)
Now, I'm off to subscribe to the Pioneer Press Dispatch.
PS
-----Original Message-----
From: sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu on behalf of Weil, Michael R.
Sent: Tue 11/7/2006 12:41 PM
To: sfpj@listserve.uwec.edu
Subject: FW: [eauclairewib] Leader Telegram
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).