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.

A few quick things
Here are a few quick things before heading into the office:

* What a terrible tragedy: ["Pro wrestler Chris Benoit, wife and son found dead"]. Yeah, I still watch wrestling sometimes, although I haven't seen it in weeks and never pay for it. If it is on TV, I'll watch it. Since downgrading my cable, however, I don't think I get many channels with wrestling anymore. Oh well. I was never into Benoit's vibe as a character but damn, this is so terrible.
Speaking of sports deaths, there was another one this week too: ["Former All-Star Rod Beck dead at 38"]. I think what makes this all the weirder is how close these guys are to my age. I mean, when you read about guys in their late 30s, early 40s, who seem to have it all, up and dying, you start to think about your own mortality a bit.

Update: Needless to say, I'm completely shocked about the situation with Benoit's family. What a huge, huge tragedy. I guess when President Bush was rambling on and on about steroid abuse and other things a few years back, we all should have thought more about it. Of course, there is an even more tragic war going on, so, we're all worried more about that. Still, this is such a shame.

* All eyes will be on "SiCKO" to see if it moves anyone like some of Moore's other films: ["'Sicko leaves top Democrat ill at ease"]. The fact is that Democrats can't keep running on just not being Republicans. They need to do some things or they need to move out of the way. They're falling into the same trap that they fell into after Clinton was elected in 1992 ... and that ushered in Republican control of Congress, where all the action is, for 14 years in 1994! Gosh, these guys are so pathetic.
FAIR, the liberal media watchdog group, has this action alert about CBS' spin on single-payer health care: ["CBS's 'Sicko' Spin"]. Personally, I've always supported single-payer because I believed it would be better than what we have now. But I don't know anymore. It isn't that I support what I have now or what anyone else has now. But I now question whether it will work or whether we will end up with tiered health care in the future, with those who can barely afford anything getting the least amount of coverage and the rich getting the Mercedes version. If we can't all get the Mercedes version for the Hyundai price, then there is a problem, in my mind. It should be regulated like electricity or some other utility. We all get the same electric, phone, cable, and Internet services, for the most part, with minor fluctuation in price. It should be the same with health care.
As well, if our government keeps letting millions and millions of illegals in, as well as unregulated refugees, who depress wages and raise the costs of social services, we are never going to get control of the problem.
And, lastly, I refuse to pay any more in taxes. I already pay enough and the government is wasting hundreds of billions of dollars killing people in foreign lands. I just won't pay any more. They need to figure out a way to get us to some sort of health care without a huge jump in taxes because those of us on the lower end of things already pay enough. So, I don't know how we fix the problems but I will know the answers when I see them.

* Finally one good thing the Democrats can do: Revive the Fairness Doctrine: ["Sens. Lott, Feinstein on 'FOX News Sunday'"]. I've never been a huge fan of Sen. Dianne Feinstein and I agree with conservatives who are trying to kill the immigration bill. But she is right on this one. There needs to be legislated balance on the publicly-owned airwaves. Satellite? They can do whatever they want. Newspapers and the Internet? Do whatever you want. There are no limits to what you can do with publishing and the Web. Don't like the newspaper? Start your own. But radio and TV have to have balance to them because there are limited numbers of stations and very few are accessible to the public. There are moves underway to fix that: ["Lower Power Radio gets new push"]. But those are long-shots, at best. Radio and TV stations don't currently have balance to them and it is clearly influencing people in a negative way.

* I like this column from this morning: ["Kelly Clarkson's dispute with Clive Davis made her music hard to hear"]. It's a fast read but it really does give you an open view of what is going on in the music industry right now, especially with all these acts who target young girls [I think they are called 'tweens or something, whatever]. I especially like the "fighting the man" line in it. Hah. I don't listen to Clarkson and I probably couldn't identify a song she performs except maybe that song with the line "since you been gone ..." But at some point, she should be given some creative control over her life, especially when she has already made a lot of money for the company. If she tanks her career, so be it, it's her life. She is a human being; not a product.

The new WBUR ad campaign
In many editions of GateHouse New England's suburban weeklies this week, WBUR 90.9, Boston's NPR affiliate, has half page ads called "Putting a face on the issues." The ad has a picture of about 15 black children holding empty saucer plates [wide bowls], in their hands, while staring at you. The picture is placed in the window panes of a fancy suburban kitchen. So, if you were standing in the kitchen doing the dishes, the kids would be staring at you through the window. The text states:

"Some problems seem like they're worlds away. Through the incisive analysis and intelligent discussion, WBUR helps you to understand the gravity of global issues. From the threat of tsunamis. To the tragedy of world hunger. Discover what it's like to be truly informed."

Then, it gives listener information. The ad, which was donated by RDW Group, Inc., a Boston/Worcester/Providence public relations firm, is a very effective one, nailing the point home that public radio can bring you the world.
I used to love listening to WBUR when Christopher Lydon hosted "The Connection" back in the 1990s. I switched from WRKO after Gene Burns and Jerry Williams left the airwaves and it was a fresh change from all the conservative political yelling and hot talk fluffery which was broadcast on the AM dial. I found the public radio shows to be informative and they often challenged me to think, even if they were overly chummy to big business or sucking up to just about everything then-President Bill Clinton wanted done.
Personally, I don't listen to public radio much anymore. While it may bring you the world, I don't think they do a very good job of bringing listeners the nation, state, or community, despite what they might think. Why anyone would waste money rebroadcasting The Diane Rehm Show is beyond me, especially when that money could be spent beefing up the local news. She is unlistenable. I also find public radio too one-sided and often too sedate. Some of their employees act as if they are higher than thou. Which is too bad, because it should be a great resource. Sigh.