Skip to main content

View Diary: FACES of Coal are iStockPhotos?! (132 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's egregious in this case (4+ / 0-)

    They aren't selling flowers.  They're selling the permanent destruction of our environment.

    It is egregious when ad campaigns sell despair and death.  The old cigarette commercials where some "doctor" recommends Camels as his favorite brand were egregious in the same way.

    •  I have to agree with think2004 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      One person's "permanent destruction of our environment" is another person's industry that "powers the US economy". We can argue about the value or harm of the industry behind the marketing campaign, but current law allows such marketing. IMO, egregious practices would be more like the recent "Stormfront" TV ads where models pretended to be real people.

      •  Well then, why not run ads selling (0+ / 0-)

        arsenic as an elixir?  That would empower the arsenic industry; and after all one person's poison is another person's industry that powers the US economy.  Perhaps because it used to be done and is now illegal?

        When we have to lawyer up on what is legal and ignore what is moral, isn't the action in question, by definition, immoral?  Laws then are enacted to stop the immoral practice by making it illegal.  And simply because there is no law yet regarding a practice, does not make it moral.

        One person's ad agent that slicks up arsenic as a tonic is another person's lying A-hole.  Not that it's necessarily illegal to be a lying A-hole.

        Seems to me.

        •  Legal marketing tactics aren't the villain here (0+ / 0-)

          My point is that while I agree the practices of the group behind the web site are shady, they're not illegal since there's no outright misrepresentation being foisted on the public. If it's the industry behind coal power that are the evil-doers, then they should be the target of our ire, not some web designer who followed commonly held practice substituting an idealized representation of the beneficiary of the product instead of a real person.

          •  I'll just have to disagree (0+ / 0-)

            that agencies are guiltless.  The money is dirty.

            We've been through all this about agents the last several elections.  When Mark Penn, for example, took bad people in South America for clients at the same time that he was Hillary's campaign's chief strategist, it was not illegal.  Nonetheless, when the light of day was shown on him he was fired.  Beyond that, Hillary lost.

            Just because a thing is legal doesn't make it acceptable.  As decent people we don't have to deal with crooks just to make a buck.

            •  To your last two sentences all I can say is (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I totally agree. Some creatives can turn a blind eye to what it is they are promoting while others stand on their principles and are more selective. But some take whatever business they can get cuz they have a family to feed and a mortgage to pay. This is nothing new.

              And how interesting that I'm talking about this after having just watched an episode of Mad Men.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site