Keeping the Pressure on ABC
October 14th, 2008 | Posted by Kevin Sweeney
When WE committed to pay ABC network to air our Repower America ad during the September 26 broadcast of 20/20, we could hardly imagine the broadcast giant would turn us down. They routinely run ads from other organizations that also mention energy and climate. (You know those ads — the ones by Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, the coal industry and others.) But they DID turn us down. They said our ad violates their corporate “policy on controversial issue advertising.”
Last week, our CEO, Cathy Zoi wrote a pointed letter to Anne Sweeney, the chief at ABC-Disney, and put out an appeal to our membership asking 100,000 Americans to sign a petition and send it to ABC, demanding the network observe fairness in advertising. In less than a week, nearly a quarter million people answered the call by signing the petition. It sends a resounding message to ABC.
Others have been talking about it. Climate Progress put up a post that became so popular through a Digg, that all the attention crashed the Climate Progress servers.
Journalists nationwide have been asking questions too, such as Eoin O’Carroll at The Christian Science Monitor’s Bright Green Blog, who managed to get ABC spokeswoman Julie Hoover to say the issue was the corporate policy on controversial issue advertising, but did not explain how oil industry ads on the same “issue” manage to pass muster.
It’s true that news and conversation about this controversy raises awareness of our message, and that can sometimes be a kind of advertising in itself. But that was never our intent. We didn’t imagine this ad could be viewed as controversial. And we’d still prefer for the American people to see our ad. We’d still prefer that one of the world’s largest media conglomerates give Americans the opportunity to make up their own minds about the “controversial issue” of repowering America through renewable energy and rejecting our dependence on fossil fuels.
So help us keep the pressure on. Sign the petition and send it to ABC, and to everyone you know.
6 Responses to “Keeping the Pressure on ABC”
[...] The Alliance’s We Campaign blog reiterates Hardwick’s point: It’s true that news and conversation about this controversy raises awareness of our message, and [...]
Go Green, Save World
Can you please give us an update of where this issue is? I know it’s only Friday, but I would like to do a piece about it on my blog.
I’m very disappointed to read that ABC tried to hide behind some controversial advertising policy. That makes it smell like more of an issue of money.
Frankly, I’m disappointed that the “sign the petition” email that I received after ABC refused to run the ad did not mention their official reason for refusing. If we expect transparency in others we have to embody it. It’s not fair to call them corporate shills without making any effort to meet their criteria.
I wish I had not signed the petition now. I’ve been boycotting ABC and may end my boycott regardless of whether they’ve run the ad, since they have given a valid reason however stupid it is. We can’t condemn them when they’ve indicated a willingness to run the ad with an unimportant change. Call their bluff, and then condemn them if nothing changes.
To be effective, the We Campaign has to hold itself to higher standards than the groups it targets. It must be above reproach in its tactics, and completely transparent and honest. This is the only way to create real change. Thanks.
check this out…
this is mine…
We’re not sure of the next steps. We sent the ad to ABC. They told us they would not run it as is, and our CEO sent a letter asking them to reconsider. ABC chose not to.
Because we had asked our members to contribute to help us run the ad on ABC, we felt obliged to go back to them with an update. And we asked them to reach out to ABC as well. There is no evidence that ABC will reconsider its policy.
The key issue is bigger than the Alliance for Climate Protection or this one ad. It really is about the messages Americans are hearing and how those messages can sometimes be restricted or filtered. It’s about freedom of speech. It’s about the health of our democracy. (We’ll only gain a healthier environment if the democracy is healthy.) What a network chooses to show or censor — depending on their view of whether it is “appropriate” or not — is a hugely important process. This issue (and, again, I’m referencing the larger issue not the controversy over our ad) could benefit from greater transparency.
Reply to this Comment