<< POST INCLUDES QUESTION ~ MAIN ~ RADIO NOTES >>
SHABBY IMPRESSION GIVEN
Capitalist realities intrude on the haven of purity that is Webdiary:
Australian Ethical Investment has to date been Webdiary’s most important advertiser and I must disclose at the outset that the following article was solicited alongside selling the ad.
Tying ads to editorial? Talk about your “ethical investments”. Media Watch once accused The Australian of doing something similar. The program’s view of this: “It looks shabby. It gives the impression that advertisers can buy the news they want.”
(Via James Waterton, these days posting at Samizdata)
Webdairy can do with some ads like yours ... SaveMyBusinessMoney ... Save $1000’s & Headaches on Payroll. The might want to put some of their own business their way.
If that doesn’t work, they should try your second ad ... Get All Your Printing from ... press11 ... Going back to print might be the next step.
I’m glad you got rid of the Peta ads ...
Tell Press11 we’re waiting for the booty ads.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 04 16 at 11:48 AM • permalinkI’m glad you got rid of the Peta ads ...
I’m not. I like pictures of pretty girls; I tend to ignore whatever they are advertising, anywho.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 16 at 12:23 PM • permalinkThe Real JeffS — even the honeys in the Lee Loading catalogue?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 04 16 at 12:40 PM • permalinkAre you claiming that this “impression that advertisers can buy the news they want” is wrong in Webdiary’s case?
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2006 04 16 at 11:08 PM • permalinkTying ads to editorial only leads to altered perceptions. A great example would be the Sydney realestate hype. I smell the greed in particular when you hear about ads booked (by owners/full paid) and placed by agents at discounted rate for the agents.
Having Public Affairs release the media news, is only a form of artificial news, or artificial events. Journalist are anthesitised and even may ot even understand investigative journalism. In fact, news is somewhat propaganda now…
The real stories aren’t faxes.
ad break ad break…
Buy now your 40 square m. new home….... It’s beaut!!! only (let’s make them love it) compact, easy maintenance and is affordable. Priced at $250,000 dollars you and your family will love it. Great views….
buy now now now buy now…....(marketing plan for new Asian Australian migrants.. they love it cause they are used to this style of living)..... etc…It’s all an illusion you are contributing to the illusion.Delusional is as delusional does:
Apologies aside, the fact is that AEI have been a great supporter of Webdiary, and I have no hesitation in asking Webdiarists with investment money to have a close look at them. My own view is that it only bolsters AEI’s ethical credentials that they support this important political media forum.
Webdiary is truly beyond parody.
#20 is probably the most disturbing post I have I ever read - all my savings are now going under the mattress.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 04 17 at 03:02 AM • permalink#12 Right on Rebecca
Can anyone think of a more careless use of other people’s money than to give it to webdiary?
A financial institution sponsoring webdiary is like having UNICEF sponsoring Gary Glitter.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 04 17 at 03:32 AM • permalinkWhat’s the bet that Geoff of #20 and #22 is the same Geoff who was last commenter on the Webdiary Ethical Investment thread?
Posted by James Waterton on 2006 04 17 at 03:38 AM • permalinkAt any rate, perhaps I’m too jaded about WD, but I honestly can’t tell if your comment is supposed to be sarcastic or not. Hamish’s “main ethical obligation is to keep [Webdiary] going”? I can’t say I agree with either the sentiment itself, or calling it an “ethical” obligation. It’s just some friggin’ website, no need to elevate its existence to a life-and-death matter. Besides, the WD folks are smug enough about their little website that couldn’t, as is.
Let’s finish with a semi-fisking of that fund manager’s article:
How could someone committed to human rights and stepping lightly retire with a clear conscience knowing that their income comes from socially and environmentally destructive activities? Or would such a person live more comfortably knowing that for a potentially smaller financial reward their investment returns include a real contribution to social and environmental wellbeing?
Except that by giving your investment money to eco-friendly companies, you’re removing competition for eco-unfriendly resources, making those cheaper to exploit for all the other companies. And, to take it one step further, you’re leaving more of the higher-return investment opportunities to people who don’t share your eco-friendly outlook, who just might use their future funds to wreck the planet even more than the original corporation would have done with your money. Not that I’d accuse greenies of being too simplistic to understand that there are such things as interdependencies, mind you.
At any rate, “buying green” may give a person warm and fuzzy feelings and make them happy for supporting the right cause (and at least they’re putting their own money into it, which is rare enough for those folks), but imagining that you’re making “a real contribution to social and environmental wellbeing” is pretty delusional, in my opinion. For that you’d have to convert substantial numbers of people, and I don’t see that happening anytime soon if the catch is lower (and I suspect substantially lower) returns on your retirement investments.
All fair comments PW.
Ethics of investing? Shit mate don’t look at me. I’d invest in global warming if I thought it would open up new beachfront property to build highrises and sell them off the plan.
I haven’t written any lead articles for WD. But Hamish has asked me a few times and recently in a weak moment I promised to oblige. Soon.
Ethics of WD? I dunno. But I’m pretty certain that if I was in Hamish’s shoes I’d feel a strong ethical obligation to keep that site going. Besides I have a dissenting view about WD which I won’t go into right now. Suffice to say perhaps that it fills an important gap IMHO.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
God. I’m trying to get my mind around this. What do you call it when two pompous self important, self described ethical purists get together and combine to act like any other “grubby” commercial partners?