The Seminal Watercooler: The Ad CNN Won’t Run |
|
| By: Jason Rosenbaum Wednesday August 5, 2009 7:00 pm | |
Well, there are two, but here’s the latest:
I don’t see what’s wrong with it – it’s true. Your thoughts?
Anything else to add this evening, throw it in the thread.
Help the Occupy Supply Fund continue to support more than 60 occupations across the country!
$202,345.00 RAISED
$191,293.71 SPENT
Last updated 2/15
100% of donations committed to the occupations served by Occupy Supply
About MyFDL
MyFDL is the community site of progressive political blog Firedoglake. Anyone can participate by writing a diary, commenting on others’ diaries, or joining groups to find other people in your area. Content posted to MyFDL is the opinion of the author alone, and should not be attributed to Firedoglake.
News. Community. Activism.
Firedoglake is a member-supported organization.
Help us continue our work for as little as $45/year.
Tweet
10 Comments
If we needed any more proof the media was run by companies, this is it.
There ain’t a dham thing wrong with that ad
COWARDS!
It speaks truth to power.
That is a damn sin these days, I guess, but as far as I know it’s not against FCC rules. Yet.
Nobody wants to bite the hand that feeds.
Nothing wrong with it that I can see. What’s CNN’s excuse?
Something along the lines that it attacks a non-public figure. Not really a good one, seeing as all this info is public info.
don’t be so uptight guys, CNN doesn’t need to run this ad because so much of its coverage of the health care debate covers the same ground. It’d be redundant to run this ad. I mean, if there’s one media corporation out there that fights the good fight, it’s the CNN hard hitters like Wolf Blitzkrieg, Anderson Cooper and Lou D..ah, shit, I’m just playing. There’s no excuse.
It didn’t have to appear as personal as it did, both speaking and printing out the name of an insurance executive, and noting his corporate pay, all the while showing a picture of him. This isn’t a political election campaign, it’s not about a person, it’s about an industry and it’s place in the extraordinarily high cost Americans pay for their health insurance and health care. If the issue were truly about health insurance executives and their comepensation (which I don’t believe it is), then it would have sufficed to simply refer to “the CEO of CIGNA”. The ad had too much the appearance of a political polemic (or opposition) against the man personally. Were he to resign or be fired tomorrow, or work at CIGNA for no pay, it wouldn’t solve the issue that confronts us, would it? Then why make the man personally, and his compensation, the issue of the ad?
It’s important to put a name and a face on the problem, instead of just saying something vague like “health care executives.” It also adds punch to use specifics. “To prove mathematically that this CEO makes more ina day than most Americans do in a year” gets is lot more effective than just saying CEO’s make too much money.”
Finally, it’s nothing personal against this specific guy. But it is something personal against the whole class of people like him.
CEO’s milking their companies to the point that they can’t perform on their contracts is very much to the point, regrettably. The present corporate sin that has destroyed much U.S. business is the short term profit taking, and it’s been particularly bad for insurance clients who pay their premiums but then are denied the benefits they contracted for.