********
I am shocked and disappointed to see an advertisement for DOW Chemical on your newspaper's website. The NYT and its editorial and publishing teams are no doubt cognizant of DOW Chemical's dubious association with a number of chemical-induced tragedies around the world, which include Agent Orange and the Bhopal gas leak in India in 1984. DOW refuses to accede to repeated international demands that it take cognizance of its complicity in these acts and repatriate the victims, as well as recognize its failures.
I would hope that a newspaper of the stature of the NYT would give more thought to material that is published, whether in your print version or on your website.
Thank you
Kartik Talamadupula.
********
And that ad is still up ....
And that ad is still up ....
6 comments:
Great job, kartik! Its more important to raise the voice and I would worry less for them not publishing it now..
Pallavi -
Yup, definitely. I didn't even send it to the "Letters to the Editor" section - I just sent it to their editorial department, because they decide which ads are shown and which ones to pull.
Okay Dow was responsible for Bhopal and half dozen chemical tragedies. But accusing the paper on morality grounds for publishing a companies ad is not right.
Ads is purely business. They have slots and people pay to fill the slots. They have policies to accept or not accept ads. And I don't think, they can turn down Dow's ad proposal, because the editors have morale issue with the company.
Dow can sue the paper for doing this. Let us be rationale...
Accepting ads is a purely business decision - I agree with you on that, but not quite along the lines you were thinking. Consider if you will - do you honestly think the NYT will give space to some pro-sla very group to air ads about itself? If it denies that space, can the NYT be sued?
I must make clear, I am *not* comparing DOW Chemical to pro-slvery or racist groups; but at the same time, I am perfectly within my rights to demand that a newspaper that I read reject money from certain sources, just as that newspaper is within all its legal rights to reject certain ads. The last time I checked, the NYT wasn't really funded by taxpayer money anyway.
Again wrong. Every ads affiliates has a policy. Like even google adsense. And those ad policies will clearly state that any ads based on racism, porn etc. will not qualify for a spot.
To exclude a type of brand in a policy is easy. But to exclude about every company based on it's field, history etc. in the policy is tough.
and hence they can't append references to saying a company which has caused death to people will not qualify for an ad spot.
corporate responsibility isn't as attention-grabbing as slavery/racism. or even death.
especially 20 yr old death.
Post a Comment