Harmony Central Forums
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Exxon-Mobil -- Should They Or Shouldn't They?

Collapse



X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Exxon-Mobil -- Should They Or Shouldn't They?

    The Huffington Post reports that Exxon Mobil corporation got a court order pulling what Huffington called "a satirical ad about climate change" from the Fox News Comcast feed just before it was supposed to be broadcast during President Obama's "State Of The Union" address. The spot, which is brazenly titled "Exxon Hates Your Children," urges Congress to eliminate fossil fuel industry subsidies. It was produced by progressive advocacy groups Oil Change International, The Other 98% and Environmental Action. You can see the ad, as posted on YouTube, below.


    The Huffington Post article says that the same ad had already run on The Rachael Maddow Show and Up With Chris Hayes, so it wasn't entirely unknown to the public when Fox and Comcast were supposed to broadcast it in the Houston, Texas and Denver, Colorado areas.

    Now the question:

    Should the court have allowed Exxon Mobil to demand the spot be pulled, even though it was not Exxon Mobil's own ad?

    On the one hand, it was not their ad to pull. Further, the groups who paid for it have a right to speak their minds on climate change, even if it does disagree with one of the world's biggest petroleum retail companies.

    On the other hand, Exxon Mobil did have a point if they claimed the ad was libelous/slanderous and might damage their public reputation. They are, after all, one of the world's biggest, richest corporations and the groups who chipped in to buy the ad are relatively small and not all that well known.  One must wonder, however, if the furror over pulling the ad actually brought more attention to it than if they'd just let it run.

    So here are the questions:

    1. Should Exxon Mobil have "asserted their rights" to get a court
    ....order to pull someone else's ad?

    2. Would it really have "hurt their reputation" as much as they say,
    ....or was that just hyperbole used to sway a judge's opinion?

    3. What about Oil Change International, The Other 98% and
    ....Environmental Action? Do they have a right to express their
    ....opinion on government subsidies to oil companies, or did Exxon
    ....Mobil squash their First Amendment right to Freedom Of Speech
    ....for their own corporate interests?

     

    What say you?

    (I'd have put a poll with this if the system allowed it.)

    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
    How Come Other People Can Get Away With Jokes Like That?

    Face it Tea Bagging Neo-Cons...if Reagan ran today, you'd be calling him a RINO socialist! -- scott666

    Barack Obama must be kenyan - everytime he speaks they trot a translator out the next day to explain what he said.-- ToBeAnnounced

    And even then some people still don't understand.-- RogueGnome

  • #2

    The only shred I can see Exxon's fleet of lawyers grasping to might be that their name was mentioned in the ad. If they'd have opened with, "Hi, I'm Big Oil...," I think they'd have had a harder time getting a judge to listen.

    ________________________________________
    "If more of us valued food, cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world." - J. R. R. Tolkien

    "It is said that power corrupts, but actually it’s more true that power attracts the corruptible." - David Brin

    Comment


    • thankyou
      thankyou commented
      Editing a comment

      thefunkman wrote:

      The only shred I can see Exxon's fleet of lawyers grasping to might be that their name was mentioned in the ad. If they'd have opened with, "Hi, I'm Big Oil...," I think they'd have had a harder time getting a judge to listen.


      That might have been a game changer.  Exxon may have prevented the ad's release, but they now have created a buzz about it as a forbidden fruit.


  • #3

    The Badger wrote:

    The Huffington Post reports that Exxon Mobil corporation got a court order pulling what Huffington called "a satirical ad about climate change" from the Fox News Comcast feed just before it was supposed to be broadcast during President Obama's "State Of The Union" address. The spot, which is brazenly titled "Exxon Hates Your Children," urges Congress to eliminate fossil fuel industry subsidies. It was produced by progressive advocacy groups Oil Change International, The Other 98% and Environmental Action. You can see the ad, as posted on YouTube, below.


    The Huffington Post article says that the same ad had already run on The Rachael Maddow Show and Up With Chris Hayes, so it wasn't entirely unknown to the public when Fox and Comcast were supposed to broadcast it in the Houston, Texas and Denver, Colorado areas.

    Now the question:

    Should the court have allowed Exxon Mobil to demand the spot be pulled, even though it was not Exxon Mobil's own ad?

    On the one hand, it was not their ad to pull. Further, the groups who paid for it have a right to speak their minds on climate change, even if it does disagree with one of the world's biggest petroleum retail companies.

    On the other hand, Exxon Mobil did have a point if they claimed the ad was libelous/slanderous and might damage their public reputation. They are, after all, one of the world's biggest, richest corporations and the groups who chipped in to buy the ad are relatively small and not all that well known.  One must wonder, however, if the furror over pulling the ad actually brought more attention to it than if they'd just let it run.

    So here are the questions:

    1. Should Exxon Mobil have "asserted their rights" to get a court
    ....order to pull someone else's ad?

    2. Would it really have "hurt their reputation" as much as they say,
    ....or was that just hyperbole used to sway a judge's opinion?

    3. What about Oil Change International, The Other 98% and
    ....Environmental Action? Do they have a right to express their
    ....opinion on government subsidies to oil companies, or did Exxon
    ....Mobil squash their First Amendment right to Freedom Of Speech
    ....for their own corporate interests?

     

    What say you?

    (I'd have put a poll with this if the system allowed it.)


    you are truly one of the dumbest muthafukas ive ever seen.

     

    so many cliches in one.

    Comment


    • thankyou
      thankyou commented
      Editing a comment

      Davo17 wrote:

      you are truly one of the dumbest muthafukas ive ever seen.

       

      so many cliches in one.


      Name calling is always a winning argument. 

       

       

       

      In the eighth grade cafeteria.


    • The Badger
      The Badger commented
      Editing a comment

      Davo17 wrote:

      The Badger wrote:

      The Huffington Post reports that Exxon Mobil corporation got a court order pulling what Huffington called "a satirical ad about climate change" from the Fox News Comcast feed just before it was supposed to be broadcast during President Obama's "State Of The Union" address. The spot, which is brazenly titled "Exxon Hates Your Children," urges Congress to eliminate fossil fuel industry subsidies. It was produced by progressive advocacy groups Oil Change International, The Other 98% and Environmental Action. You can see the ad, as posted on YouTube, below.


      The Huffington Post article says that the same ad had already run on The Rachael Maddow Show and Up With Chris Hayes, so it wasn't entirely unknown to the public when Fox and Comcast were supposed to broadcast it in the Houston, Texas and Denver, Colorado areas.

      Now the question:

      Should the court have allowed Exxon Mobil to demand the spot be pulled, even though it was not Exxon Mobil's own ad?

      On the one hand, it was not their ad to pull. Further, the groups who paid for it have a right to speak their minds on climate change, even if it does disagree with one of the world's biggest petroleum retail companies.

      On the other hand, Exxon Mobil did have a point if they claimed the ad was libelous/slanderous and might damage their public reputation. They are, after all, one of the world's biggest, richest corporations and the groups who chipped in to buy the ad are relatively small and not all that well known.  One must wonder, however, if the furror over pulling the ad actually brought more attention to it than if they'd just let it run.

      So here are the questions:

      1. Should Exxon Mobil have "asserted their rights" to get a court
      ....order to pull someone else's ad?

      2. Would it really have "hurt their reputation" as much as they say,
      ....or was that just hyperbole used to sway a judge's opinion?

      3. What about Oil Change International, The Other 98% and
      ....Environmental Action? Do they have a right to express their
      ....opinion on government subsidies to oil companies, or did Exxon
      ....Mobil squash their First Amendment right to Freedom Of Speech
      ....for their own corporate interests?

       

      What say you?

      (I'd have put a poll with this if the system allowed it.)


      you are truly one of the dumbest muthafukas ive ever seen.

       

      so many cliches in one.


      I am tempted to say vile things about your parents, but I doubt I could pick them from the long list of suspects.


  • #4

    Whether Exxon-Mobil likes it or not, they saved progressive advocacy groups Oil Change International, The Other 98% and Environmental Action a lot of $$$ in getting the word out.

    The Internet now has the information and Exxon-Mobil had best get used to it!

    Comment


    • cdawg
      cdawg commented
      Editing a comment
      i'd say it wouldn't do much to their rep. i think people are pretty clueless how these big corporations are ruining the environment. the ad won't awaken many folk.
      just take a look at how much damage has already been caused by fracking, nationwide. the articles and testimonies abound. still nothing is done. big money will always win.








Working...
X