MEDIA ALERT
Greenpeace Esso Adverts Rejected By Press
December 2, 2001
The great unreported story of climate change is the true extent
to which big business is opposed to the Kyoto climate change treaty and
indeed any action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. When the corporate
media report climate change obstructionism, journalists talk in vague terms
of "American opposition", point the finger at comparatively insignificant
business pressure groups such as the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), or
actually applaud business for leading the way. In the Independent on
Sunday, environment correspondent Geoffrey Lean insists, "The good news is
that industry is ahead of politicians" in working to cut emissions (Lean,
the Independent on Sunday, 5.11.00). The New Scientist declares: "Arguably,
it is now business rather than governments that are leading the drive
against greenhouse gases. If American industry is moving this way, it's
unlikely that Bush will oppose it." (New Scientist, 2.12.00)
The
reality could not be more different. Consider, for example, the United States
Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) - the
two biggest voices of US big business. Unlike the GCC, the US Chamber and the
NAM represent the interests of just about every large corporation you've ever
heard of. Unbeknownst to the public the NAM has repeatedly affirmed its
opposition to Kyoto. Consider the following declaration, widely available to
the public through the NAM website but, to our knowledge, unreported in the
press:
"We believe that the Kyoto Protocol to the Convention on Global
Climate Change is inherently flawed... We oppose the Kyoto Protocol and urge
the President and Congress to reject it. We also oppose attempts by
the Administration to mandate greenhouse-gas emission reductions in the
absence of Senate ratification of a protocol to the Convention on Global
Climate Change and/or enactment of specific authorizing
statutes."(www.nam.org)
The influential US Chamber of Commerce takes a
similar stance to the NAM and GCC. The following is taken from the US
Chamber's website:
"Environmental & Regulatory Reform
Efforts
by environmental extremists to over-regulate the marketplace and put huge new
mandates on businesses will be opposed... Priorities include:
1. Prevent
the implementation of the Kyoto Climate Change
Treaty." (www.uschamber.org)
The reason that the public is in the dark
about exactly who is responsible for obstructing action to halt climate
change and why, is that the corporate media are part of the same big business
system opposed to action. Oil companies are also leading advertisers, big
owners of the media, and carry massive weight with governments and media
companies. Since 1981 oil companies have been subsidising almost three
quarters of prime-time shows on the US Public Broadcasting
Service.
Last week both the Daily Mail and the Daily Express refused to
run a full-page Greenpeace advert calling on consumers to boycott Esso.
The advert, part of the "Stop Esso" campaign, was due to appear in national
and regional newspapers on December 1. The campaign calls for a UK boycott
of Esso service stations in protest at the company's support for the
US withdrawal from the Kyoto climate change treaty (www.stopesso.com).
A Greenpeace spokesperson told Media Lens:
"We approached many
regional papers last week and some nationals to carry the ad ahead of Stop
Esso day: the Guardian, Independent and Evening Standard all agreed. The
Daily Express and Daily Mail, having seen it, turned it down, saying their
editors didn't have to give a reason why... The following regional papers
also turned it down, saying that the Newspaper Association had advised them
not to carry it: Birmingham Evening Mail, Wolverhampton Express and Star,
Liverpool Echo, Manchester Evening news, Yorkshire Evening Post. Also,
Glasgow evening Times, no reason given..."
Greenpeace said that,
following a Guardian report on the story, the Daily Mail decided to run the
advert and the Express was reconsidering its position. Media Lens was unable
to confirm that the regional papers had maintained their ban at the time of
sending this alert.
The rejection of Greenpeace's advert should be
considered in light of the fact that oil companies are freely allowed to
spend vast fortunes promoting their products together with their 'green
credentials'. In July 2000, BP announced that a 'greener' brand change had
cost $7m, with plans to spend a further $100m a year developing the new
image. The press have been more than happy to fill their pages with these
adverts.
It is also disturbing that the Greenpeace advert was rejected at
a time when the press is desperate for advertising revenue. Writing in the
Guardian recently, Emily Bell notes: "For the advertising-based media
industry, the current recession is best characterised as abyss-shaped. Almost
from nowhere, the ground has opened up under our feet and swallowed
businesses, jobs, TV channels and magazines..." (Emily Bell, 'Staring into
the abyss', Guardian, 19.11.01)
But +still+ there is no room for
Greenpeace's pinprick response to the oil giants' enormous advertising
campaigns!
In reality, radical adverts (like so many news reports and
articles) are often rejected as a matter of course, being subject to a de
facto ban from billboards, TV screens and newspapers. In Canada and the
United States the dissident campaigning organisation, Adbusters, has had its
adverts routinely rejected by stations and newspaper. Adbusters' TV adverts
('spots') are extremely professional and are made by some of the best
filmmakers in Canada and the United States. Nevertheless, Adbusters director,
Kalle Lasn, told Media Lens:
"TV Station managers said 'Why should I
run ads that hurt my business. We decide what we run or not, we're trying to
run a business. Why don't you just go away.' These station managers were
acting as if they owned the airwaves, even though, legally, these are public
airwaves owned by the people and leased to stations. Broadcasters are
supposed to act in the public interest, not merely in their own commercial
interest. The big three stations in the United States: the ABC network, CBS
and NBC, over the last eight years, have systematically, routinely refused to
air any one of the twenty spots that we've thrown at them. They've refused
every single one of them!"
The corporate media is free, fair, open and
neutral - as long as what you have to say does not threaten the interests of
the corporate system of which they are an integral part.
Do Media Lens
readers sense a conspiracy, a cabal of evil liars colluding to censor and
deceive? If so, we beg to differ - there is nothing more at work here than
free market forces and the human capacity for self-deception. Corporate
journalists are sincere and skilled performers... But perhaps we should let
George Orwell fill in some of the detail:
"Circus dogs jump when the
trainer cracks his whip, but the really well-trained dog is the one that
turns his somersault when there is no whip."
SUGGESTED ACTION
Contact the Daily Express: chris.williams@e...
and the Daily Mail: editorial@a...
(specifying Editor, the Daily Mail, in the 'Subject' box). Ask them why they
initially rejected Greenpeace's Esso advert. Ask the editors how much
advertising revenue they have accepted from oil and car companies in the last
financial year.
Support Greenpeace and the Stop Esso campaign: www.stopesso.com
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. In writing letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
Copy your letters to editor@medialens.org
Feel free to respond to Media Lens alerts (alerts@medialens.org).
Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.MediaLens.org