Before Truth Can Get Out of Bed in the Morning

By October 4, 2007Media Relations

That was a Ralph Nader op-ed? He put his name on it? Amazing.

We’re speaking of the “The Best Editorials Money Can Buy,” an op-ed posted last Friday at We thought it had been suitably dismissed last week in this post, “How Embarrassing: To Get Basic Facts so Wrong.” But now his foolishness is turning up bit by bit in the blogosphere, today on something called “Politzine.”

Guest Perspective/Ralph Nader

On September 26, 2007, the powerful National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) bought two pages in the Wall Street Journal to tout a prosperous, expanding group of member-companies producing products.

As we noted, the insert was four pages and the NAM didn’t buy it. And as we noted: What a maroon.

But it’s a heck of a good (four-page) section, available as a .pdf download here. Thanks for the promotion, Ralph!

Join the discussion 3 Comments

  • Hi Carter,

    Not to be argumentative, but you didn’t really answer the question. Of course it is your business but that doesn’t mean Mr. Nader made anything up or was inaccurate, as you claim. In fact, knowing a bit about marketing and having worked in media in some way, shape or form now for almost two decades, I would bet that his conclusions were quite accurate and you’re just a tad defensive because he called your org on it. Since you won’t answer my question – for obvious, understandable reasons – you can’t really back up what your saying. At the same time, simply answering the question would really enlighten people to how such supplements come together. Personally, whether I agree with the information or not, they are a great marketing tool for getting your company’s [or association’s] points across.

    I think in the future, before you tarnish someone like Ralph Nader, a hero to many and, frankly, a champion of American manufacturing and workers, with accusations on your blog, maybe you should either be prepared to back them up, or just let it go.

    Thanks for the convo and I look forward to continuing to read your blog … since I too care about American manufacturing and workers.


  • Carter says:

    Our advertising practices are the business of the association and its members. Which does not mean free rein to make stuff up about them.

  • Hi Carter,

    Thanks for the plug about the blog. A few quick questions:

    1) “… the NAM did not buy it. It was paid for by the ads” can you clarify please? Did the WSJ invite you to put together a four page supplement in which they would get ads for it, or did you reserve the space and then sell ads for it? If it is the latter, than Ralph would technically be correct: You reserved [bought] the space and then got some other entities to help you pay for it. If it is something else, please explain. Thanks.

    2) As we all know, “freedom isn’t free” and when it comes to alleged free trade and alleged free markets, there is years and years with of statistical evidence showing that it has been a costly, harmful and expensive for the United States to have as policy. I could go into a bunch of the data, but you already know it.

    3) I would contend having been a watcher of the WSJ editorial pages for a bit of time that while they may think their philosophy is “free people, free markets” it is more like “freedom for certain people and certain markets if you can afford it.”

Leave a Reply