News On USA-NEXT AARP Ad....

...I wrote a diary earlier this week about the DAILY KOS front page STORY being used on the CBS Evening News when they reported about this ad, as part of the nasty tactics of Social Security...

...Some of you said in that DIARY that the Gay Couple in the ad were upset about having their likeness used, and wondered whether CBS had said anything about it. CNN in their segment "Inside The Blogs" found a blog that found out that the photo came from a Portland Newspaper. The Newspaper said that they didn't give permission for the photo to be used, and that they DON'T sell their photos.

CNN contacted USA-NEXT to get a response. USA-NEXT claimed that they were sure that they're media consultant had paid for the photo. CNN then contacted the media consultant, who admitted that he quote "screwed up".

I'll update with a transcript & a link to the blog that found the newspaper as soon as I find it...

Update [2005-3-4 16:18:15 by Rimjob]:

It was the Portland Tribune...

A photograph lifted without permission from the Portland Tribune’s Web site has landed smack in the middle of an angry national debate involving patriotism, Social Security and gay marriage.

The photo, showing two Portland men just before their marriage last March, was used in an Internet advertisement for USA Next, a group attacking AARP for opposing President Bush’s plan to change Social Security. The ad ran from 6 p.m. Feb. 15 to 10 a.m. Feb. 21 on www.spectator.org, the Web site for the conservative magazine The American Spectator...

... USA Next, The American Spectator and Mark Montini International, the company that produced the ad, did not have authorization from the Portland Tribune to use the copyrighted photo in any capacity, including journalistic or commercial purposes. The paper did not give, sell or contribute its use in any way, and no request for its use was received before the photo appeared in the ad, said Tim Jewett, Portland Tribune photo director.

Such a request, if submitted, would have been rejected anyway, Jewett said, because the paper won’t sell photos for commercial use without the permission of people shown in the photo. All commercial sales are negotiated separately....

•  Stop thief stop!

  by Fabian on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 01:14:06 PM PDT

•  Let's keep 'em in court for weeks on this...

  hopefully.

  by dday on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 01:18:49 PM PDT

•  Are you aware that the couple

  in the photo have been making diaries here on Dkos keeping us updated on them and the USAnext propaganda? They stated that USAnext didn't have photo approval or their approval..They have lawyered up and Americablog is in charge of their publicity. At least that is the last I have heard about it.

  by Chamonix on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 01:24:16 PM PDT

  •  That's right

    John Aravosis of Americablog is now their publicist.
    They have also retained Proskauer Rose (and they are huge) as legal councel.  The lawyer's name is Wolf (forgot his first name).

    by ask on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 01:59:47 PM PDT

    •  Here's a link

      To John's press release last Monday.

      The lawyer's name is Christopher Wolf.

      by ask on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 02:03:58 PM PDT

•  Mark Montini sure gets around.

  He's associated with the Leadership Institute where Gannon/Guckert got his journalism training, something called Campaignsecrets.com, anothe company that goes by the name, Complete Communications Strategies, and the Heartland Institute.  
  And then, of course, he's close with Morton Blackwell and the Council on National Policy, a super-secret group that meets three time a year to determine the national interest.  Even GWB had to be vetted by these guys before he could run for President.
  Which raises the question, at least in my mind, why such an important person has been designated to produce such a really bad ad on an issue that GWB has been pushing for over twenty-five years.
  Is somebody just going through the motions to keep Dubya happy so he won't sour on what they really want?
  There are so many others who could have done a mcu better job.  Like, for example,
  Red Sea, LLC
  Mentzer Media Services
  Alanoleonard Inc.
  Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates

  When people with a lot of money put out a shoddy product, it's usually time to ask why.

  by hannah on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 01:47:38 PM PDT

  •  The USA Next Ad

    I must admit I am STILL astounded by the absolute ineptitude behind that ad.  In every way you could think of, it was just completely wrong....so completely divorced from the issues at hand and so blatantly trying to use homophobia and jingoistic militarism as weapons in a debate over the future of Social Security.

    For Swift Boat consultants who managed to do so much damage against with their lies about Kerry at a critical time, I still can't believe just how stupid their efforts were this time.....and have you noticed.....the phrase "USA Next" seems to have totally disappered from the ether.  Appears the AARP boulder is still sitting in the middle of Mr. Bush's road to fiscal paradise.  Of course he has probably been assured that if he passes privatization he will be assured the services of several dozen virgin brokers in the afterlife.

    by dweb8231 on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 02:06:00 PM PDT

•  Have you guys looked at their web

  site?  I mean they couldn't spell out more plainly what they are up to.  They want to cut into the market share of seniors that AARP seems to have a lock on.  

  Granted, AARP is a money-making enterprise that purports to be a lobby for seniors, but in reality they're just trying to milk some of the considerable wealth controlled by old people.

  That's why USANext is just as sleazy as the AARP.  They're just a cut above those people who go around selling roof water-proofing that washes off in the first rain.

  What I want to know is how come a nation in which religion plays such a large part produces so many crooks.

  by hannah on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 02:09:31 PM PDT

  •  You don't know how right you are

    when you write "Granted, AARP is a money-making enterprise that purports to be a lobby for seniors, but in reality they're just trying to milk some of the considerable wealth controlled by old people."

    Actually,  AARP was originally a front for the Colonial Penn Insurance Company.  It is hard to find accurate information about this relationship on line.   Thus when one search the connnetcion you might the obituary of the founder  which makes it seem hunky dory.

    A more accurate portrayal of relationship can be found at the AFSCME site where they explain why they view it as no surprise for how AARP rolled over on medicare.  Allow me to quote the relevant portion, with the key parts bolded by me:
    

    By endorsing the prescription drug legislation, AARP can claim much of the credit for its passage. But the endorsement could easily backfire, as was the case in 1988, when AARP took a similar action. At that time, AARP favored a bill to provide Medicare coverage for catastrophic hospital and doctor bills, despite the fact that it would have cost many retirees who already had the coverage from former employers hundreds of dollars a year in added premiums. A senior backlash resulted and Congress decided to repeal the bill shortly after it was passed. The debacle cost AARP thousands of members.

         NO SURPRISE. "Many people would be surprised to know that AARP did not support Medicare at its creation," said Roger Hickey, Co-Director of the Campaign for America's Future, and one of those who destroyed his AARP membership card at a rally at the organization's headquarters.

          "Along with the American Medical Association and the insurance industry, AARP was one of the most vocal opponents of Medicare's enactment in 1965, largely because of AARP's close ties to Colonial Penn insurance company. For those who remember AARP's checkered history, its recent action doesn't come as a total shock," he said.

    I might note in passing that I worked in data processing in the Philadelphia area from the mid 1970's to 1982.  During that time Colonial Penn was a well-knwon shop, because it was one of the few places using a particular set of Honeywell computers, and they actively seeking people with experience on those machines, which I had.  They recruited me, I did talk to them, and the people interviewing me told me what a sweet deal it was because of the captive pool of clients through AARP.

    The relationship was officially dissolved, under great legal pressure.  One example was this "multimillion dollar settlement http://www.sbd-law.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=ND_Articles&file=article&sid=76&c atid=4].

    I think by now you get the picture.  I am not a fan of AARP. So let me end with a story from my 30th college reunion.  At dinner one classmate (this is class of '67 in college) said he wanted to bring back the good old times, when our response to unrequested invitations from large bureaucracies seemed appropriate  --- whereupon he took out the AARP card he had received - unsolicited --  and set it on fire, just as many of the class had burned the draft cards.  I think his action was appropriate.

    by teacherken on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 02:58:29 PM PDT

    •  sorry about the sloppy html

      I had meant to preview befre I posted but I was moving too fast.  Otherwise I might have caught the error.

      by teacherken on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 02:59:27 PM PDT

•  USA Next "benefits":

  The site lists all kinds of benefits of USA Next membership (insurance, hotel discounts, etc.).  It looks like membership is required to even get information on what the benefits are.  I couldn't bring myself to join just to find out.  Does anyone have any specifics on what actual "benefits" USA Next seems to offer members?

  by Merle on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 02:31:50 PM PDT