Saturday, October 6, 2007

So, was Nader right or wrong?

An interesting little give and take is going on over at the National Association of Manufacturers' blog, ShopFloor.org, which I think it worthy of reposting here, since I'm involved in it.
Earlier this week, Ralph Nader sent me his latest column about an advertising supplement for the NAM published in the WSJ. Since I read the WSJ, I noticed it too, and posted Nader's column happily.
However, over at the NAM, they weren't too happy about the column and they posted this note on their blog: ["How Embarrassing: To Get Basic Facts Wrong"].
Nader's mistakes? It was a four page supplement, not two. And, the NAM claims they didn't "buy" the ad, "It was paid for by ads." There was barely a mention about Nader's main points of the column or the fact that alleged free trade is clobbering the American economy.
I didn't see the blog's post until five days later, after they posted this, upset that I published the Nader column: ["Before Truth Can Get Out of Bed in the Morning"]. Thankfully, a reader from overseas posted a comment taking me to this blog entry. I would not have even noticed it otherwise.
Since my blog was noted on their blog, I responded with some questions of my own:

Hi Carter,

Thanks for the plug about the blog. A few quick questions:

1) "... the NAM did not buy it. It was paid for by the ads" can you clarify please? Did the WSJ invite you to put together a four page supplement in which they would get ads for it, or did you reserve the space and then sell ads for it? If it is the latter, than Ralph would technically be correct: You reserved [bought] the space and then got some other entities to help you pay for it. If it is something else, please explain. Thanks.

2) As we all know, "freedom isn't free" and when it comes to alleged free trade and alleged free markets, there is years and years with of statistical evidence showing that it has been a costly, harmful and expensive for the United States to have as policy. I could go into a bunch of the data, but you already know it.

3) I would contend having been a watcher of the WSJ editorial pages for a bit of time that while they may think their philosophy is "free people, free markets" it is more like "freedom for certain people and certain markets if you can afford it."

The response from Carter was even more enlightening in its curt, short response:
Our advertising practices are the business of the association and its members. Which does not mean free rein to make stuff up about them.
Hmm. Well, OK, he's correct. But he doesn't answer the question. So, I wrote this:
Hi Carter,

Not to be argumentative, but you didn't really answer the question. Of course it is your business but that doesn't mean Mr. Nader made anything up or was inaccurate, as you claim. In fact, knowing a bit about marketing and having worked in media in some way, shape or form now for almost two decades, I would bet that his conclusions were quite accurate and you're just a tad defensive because he called your org on it. Since you won't answer my question - for obvious, understandable reasons - you can't really back up what your saying. At the same time, simply answering the question would really enlighten people to how such supplements come together. Personally, whether I agree with the information or not, they are a great marketing tool for getting your company's [or association's] points across.

I think in the future, before you tarnish someone like Ralph Nader, a hero to many and, frankly, a champion of American manufacturing and workers, with accusations on your blog, maybe you should either be prepared to back them up, or just let it go.

Thanks for the convo and I look forward to continuing to read your blog ... since I too care about American manufacturing and workers.
They haven't cleared the post yet for publication but I will be interested to see what the response is.
The NAM blog is actually a pretty interesting read, with all kinds of details about American manufacturing. So, I'm glad to have discovered it even if it was this way. But it would be nice to see the NAM start to worry about some of their political positions and how they are harming American manufacturing and American workers. The two, as well as the health of the overall country, are tied hand in hand.

1 comment:

blog@polidoc.com said...

I notice that the hawks have come out to address Cinthia McKinney's call to all Democrats to quit the party and join the Progressive Movement.

Watch out for attacks on the Green Party and its candidates. Both the Republicans and Democrats have a lot of potential for smothering a new political movement.