| Number 280 | December 10, 2004 |
|
This Week:
|
|
Greetings, Well, I'm back after my one-week break to install the new computer system. If you are reading this, then you know that the new system is up and running! It's really amazing, and if any of you in the Twin Cities area are thinking about buying or upgrading a computer, please get in touch with me, as Brad is a wizard, and he can help you like he helped me. Thanks to all of you who made this possible through your GENEROUS contributions to the just-completed Nygaard Notes Capital Drive! It is a great thing to replace a machine before it actually fails, as I learned all too well last week when our water heater broke and flooded the basement. Thanks to all of you, my old computer did not break and flood the office with unpublished news and analysis. The old computer was great, and served me well for almost 5 years, but its days were numbered. Thank you, thank you, thank you to all of you for making another five-plus years problem-free years (fingers crossed) possible! Since people's attention was so consumed by the presidential election during the past few months, I refrained from commenting on many interesting things in the media during that period. So the next couple of weeks in the Notes will probably feature me catching up on some of the more interesting things from my accumulated clippings from the period. This week it's a piece from the Business Section (always entertaining!) and a meditation on a single revealing word in the news and its meaning. Next week I hope to have more on Iraq, and maybe something about Osama bin Laden, boot camps for juvenile offenders, hunger, poverty, and I think I'll have something about the mindreading abilities of journalists (!). As usual, maybe it'll be none of that, but something about which we don't even know yet. And that's the beauty of Nygaard Notes, isn't it? You don't know what you're going to get next week -- and I don't, either! Glad to be back in the saddle, Nygaard |
|
Three “Quotes” this week, with each one lending meaning to the other two. Here’s “Quote” #1, from the New York Times of November 17th, in a story headlined, “As Fire Crackles in Falluja, G.I.'s Look to Rebuild a Wasteland:”
Happy? Consider “Quote” #2, which appeared later in the same article, referring to an Iraqi man named Kamal Mohammed Saleh:
Well, what has our government done to his city? For a concise summary, we go ahead 11 days for “Quote” #3 to the Times of Sunday, November 28, 2004, in an article headlined “After Falluja, U.S. Troops Fight a New Battle Just as Important, and Just as Tough”:
|
|
One way to learn something about how media works - or doesn't work - is to look at the use of certain words in news reports. As an example, let's look at the word "quietly." In many cases, the word "quietly" is used in regard to the actions of public officials, and it makes sense. As in a December 5th article about U.S. relations with Brazil, in which the New York Times stated that " Trade differences with Brazil...have been quietly patched up..." They mean (I guess) that these differences have been "patched up" behind the scenes, using diplomacy and private meetings and so forth. Do we need to know the details? Probably not, so that's fine. But often when you see the word "quietly" it is a clue that what you are reading is a rather stark, if indirect, admission by a media outlet of the fact that they have been sleeping on the job. The job, that is, of reporting important news. For example... On October 23rd, the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) published an Associated Press (AP) story on the second page of the "Business" Section that used the word "quietly" as follows:
Now, if it is true that this is "the most sweeping rewrite of corporate tax law in nearly two decades," then isn't it the job of the media to assure that it is not done "quietly?" True, as the Chinese Xinhua News Agency reported, "There was no ceremony for the bill-signing and President Bush made no comment on the new bill." But all that means is that the President would like his signing of the bill to be "quiet," presumably because he suspects - accurately, I hope - that most United Statesians would not approve of "showering" the wealthy with even more preferential tax treatment than they already get. His signature was affixed to this outrage, after all, about two weeks before the presidential election. The reality is that such a scandal will only remain "quiet" if reporters and editors refuse to give prominence to a story that they, themselves, admit is a huge one. In this case, the entire story was pretty "quiet" in the nation's press, with the New York Times devoting a total of two sentences to the bill in the month preceding the signing, despite numerous stories sent over the wires by Associated Press, among others, during that period. Here's another example. On the same day, October 23rd, the AP led off a different story like this: "More than 800 former soldiers have failed to comply with Army orders to get back in uniform and report for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, the Army said Friday. That is more than one-third of the total who were told to report to a mobilization station by October 17." The Army, reported the AP, "is trying to resolve these cases quietly." (That's the Star Trib's edited version; the original AP story said, "the Army is going out of its way to resolve these cases as quietly as possible." Interesting editing, eh?) Again, it's fairly easy to see why the Army might want to keep this evidence of dissatisfaction among the ranks with the two ongoing U.S. military occupations "quiet," especially with their Commander-in-Chief up for election in a couple of weeks. But, again, isn't it the media's job to report on such things, regardless of the Army's desire to keep it "quiet?" So, remember: If a major piece of news is not widely known, the media have failed to do their job. And when the media themselves tell you that the people involved took some major action "quietly," they are confessing to that failure. |
|
I hope I'm not the only one who was bothered by the article that appeared on the front page of the Business Section of the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) of October 28th. The headline read "MARKETING WITH A CAUSE; Company Tie-ins with Issues Gain Goodwill - and Help Sales." Here are a few of the comments contained in this article, which I think tell us a lot about the treacherous gulf between corporations and human beings. The article focused on the Target Corporation, which is based in Minneapolis and is a giant of the local economy. Here's the lead paragraph:
The Star Trib goes on to explain that "Target's decision to align its business with a well-known issue highlights the growing role of 'cause marketing' in corporate America. Where companies might once have been content to make charitable contributions to various groups, they're now more inclined to link their donations to the sale of certain products." A senior editor of some "trade publication" tells us that 'What distinguishes cause marketing is it really connects companies on an emotional level to a consumer.'" Hey, more than 200,000 people are diagnosed with breast cancer in the United States every year, and they all have families and loved ones - that's a pretty good-sized group of "consumers." As the article says, "Few causes are as popular with corporate America as breast cancer awareness and education. With October being breast cancer awareness month, it is the 'cause du jour,' [the editor] said, especially for companies whose primary customers are women." Target, especially, likes this "cause," since "Target's primary customer is a woman aged 35 to 45, making the retailer's support of breast cancer research 'a very natural connection,' said John Remington, Target's vice president of marketing." What Motivates a Corporation The Star Trib reporter tells us "Critics complain that companies are drawn to cause marketing not just to generate good will but to increase sales as well." Hmm... "critics complain"? The very next sentence tells us that "A survey of retailers and consumer product companies released this summer found that 81 percent said sales impact was a top factor in deciding whether to undertake a cause marketing program." So, in other words, those "critics" are "complaining" about something that is indisputably true. This is "balanced" reporting at its worst. But think for another moment, a little bit more deeply, about what the reporter said about companies being drawn to "cause marketing not just to generate good will but to increase sales as well." Consider that the entire REASON that Target cares about "good will" is for its capacity to increase sales. This sentence, by implying that Target might undertake this marketing effort "just to generate good will," has the effect of attributing an altruistic motive to a corporation that just isn't there. It may be present in individual employees; they are, after all, human beings. But not in the corporation. Is the reporter - Melissa Levy, who is after all writing in the Business Section- really that ignorant about modern marketing? It's hard to imagine, but one has to wonder when reading a later paragraph that quotes Regis Corporation spokeswoman Janis Chamoun, responding to critics of the "cause marketing" trend, who "conceded that cause marketing can be a 'delicate balance.' But stylists of the Edina-based chain actually lose money during the company's Clip for the Cure day, by volunteering to give $15 haircuts that normally would cost $35." Hello? Using this reasoning, the cost of placing an ad in the Star Tribune would also be "lost" money. Of course, it's not, any more than the $20 off of a haircut is "lost." The haircuts are a promotion, and the money is a marketing expense, just like the cost of an ad. Still later, we read that the Yoplait yogurt company will donate 10 cents for each pink Yoplait lid returned to it by the end of the year. "The company ties sales to its donation because it wants to involve the consumer and raise awareness of the breast cancer issue, spokeswoman Pam Becker said." Does Yoplait want to "involve the consumer" in reducing the environmental toxins that lie at the root of the cancer phenomenon? No. It wants to "involve the consumer" in spending his or her money on Yoplait yogurt, rather than some other brand. On a related note. . . Target recently announced that it will no longer allow the familiar Salvation Army bell-ringers to solicit donations outside of Target Stores in the United States. This was mentioned in the Star Trib article, but the relevant numbers were not. Last year Target made about $300,000 of "breast cancer-specific" donations. The Salvation Army, meanwhile - which runs homeless shelters, chemical dependency centers, and other programs presumably not utilized by the desired Target shopper - estimates that the Target decision will cost them about $9 million, or about 30 times more than the "cause marketing" will raise for breast cancer research. [For more on the "charitable" activities of the Target Corporation, go to the Nygaard Notes website and check out issues #106 "Target Schools for Target Parents," and #226 "Schools That Have Benefitted the Most"] |