Oregon Media Insiders

Specifically, this.

Matt Davis

[edited for long URL.--L]

The WW let the insert run due to "inattention"? Bullshit. You ran it, just like you run tobacco ads almost every week, but then bailed on the remaining scheduled runs because they did not pay enough and you pussied out when you got a few complaints. Stick your tail back between your legs and go home....

How does an ad get into your paper due to "inattention?" Did RJR sneak their way into your offices after the paper had gone to press and just plodge one in on the sly? Are you also saying the WW is never going to run inserts again because they litter the landscape?

I love a pile-on as much as the next man, but come off it. Next thing I know you'll be accusing us of plagiarizing your advertising!

Matt Davis

Is WW now insert-free, to Keep Portland Beautiful? We're never going to pick up a wayward insert that's fluttered from a WW, ever again?

How many people is global warming going to kill? How many kids..... Think of the children for Christ Sakes!

Text from ad on Oregon Media Insiders:
Gas Station Television
Reach consumers at the pump with TV advertising, marketing and media
www.gasstationtv.com

If by very young you mean well over 60% are over 18, then yeah, they are very young. Also, it is not illegal to market to youth, it is illegal to market to minors (under 18-years-old).

If newspapers did not take ads from anybody that was written about, there would be no professional news. Heck, it's the same with blogs, should we invalidate any OMI political opinion because it has an Edwards ad?

Seriously, Hank?

I wish there were a better way to express how much I'm oh my god rolling on the floor laughing my ass of. Oh wait. There is. OMGROTFLMAO.

Please tell us more about what else has managed to sneak its way into your paper due to your "inattention."

---Scott Moore

I have rarely seen a larger pile of crap than this. The Merc has always been a small self-referential paper with a frame-of-reference of about 2 weeks. Here's proof that it has no moral compass.

From their website:

"Hey James X! Congratulations on making it through your life so far without "peddling dangerous addictions." Here's the way our newspaper works: We produce our paper through advertising. The lion's share of our advertising comes from businesses that would be considered—even by your high moral standards—to be not so harmful to society. (BOY, IS THAT ARGUABLE OR WHAT??) Now, here's the important part: Our editorial department and sales department are practically different entities, and other than share an office, we don't stick our noses in each others business. That way if we were to ever "write about raising cigarette taxes" (SNORE!!), we would do so without a second thought—because I have no idea what ads we're running this week. And if we do lose the account because of what we wrote, then cest la vie.
As for the morality of running these ads or not, I personally am secure in the knowledge that our readers aren't idiots, and can judge for themselves whether or not to put chewing tobacco in their mouths. (I personally choose not to, because, well… EWWW!)
Good topic, though, James X!

Posted by Wm. Steven Humphrey"

Sucks. A bunch of trustafarians who like to think they are too hip for words. I will say I'm getting way sick of the smut that WW runs in the back of it's paper. It's just stupid.

Reminds of WW's tirade a few years ago about radon test results at Whitaker Middle School. The cover story trumpted the fact that radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer... and chastised the Portland school district for not acting faster.

Nowhere did that story mention the "first" leading cause of lung cancer... the substance that kills about half a million people in the US each year (at least 100 times the toll of radon).

Gosh, do you think that ommission might have had anything to do with the big two page color cigarette ad on the pages preceding the cover story?