The great democratization of media means we’ll hear a lot more voices – it will be interesting to see how many of these voices take money to promote dirty energy.

Although I respect the slippery slope argument about editorial value judgments, I think there is a clear moral line that must be drawn, especially on a massive public health issue like this one.

Did you know a classmate of ours was just arrested for picketing a coal plant in West Virginia? For many Americans, our reliance on coal is a life and death issue, and we need to fight on the right side.

Thanks for the article – enjoyed it and also enjoyed revisiting the links at the end of the piece. I agree with your general sentiments and your surprise regarding the messages in some prominent papers’ advertising campaigns, but how do you suggest that newspapers and other media sources make value judgements regarding the ‘truth’ behind their advertisers’ campaigns? I would argue that this is a slippery slope.

I’ve also been surprised to see many of the CSR campaigns which emerge from the bigger oil companies (and car companies for that matter) but think that greenwashing is a reality of the market right now and struggle to imagine a defining line for the ‘common sense morals’ in advertising you suggest. Perhaps this is simplifying the issues, but I would argue that it would be wiser for papers to look into some of these campaigns through investigative journalism and features writing. Agreed that it’s certainly wise for angry readers to express concern on the opinons pages and via newspapers’ ombudsmen, but I don’t see a straight advertising boycott as the answer.

But when the left hand and right hand are working at opposite ends, nothing good can get done.

Here’s info. for the NY Times public editor:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/index.html