Sunday, May 11, 2014

How Much Are We Paying To Be A Mouthpiece For Big Oil?



According to the Globe's Eric Reguly the going rate is about $207,000...

A page:

...What is clever about the ad (boosting the Keystone XL pipeline) is not the photo; it is the headline and the succinct lines of copy beneath it. They are slick pieces of propaganda – misleading without being outright lies. Of course, advertising is all about propaganda. But this ad is unconscionable because you, the Canadian taxpayer, paid for it. The rate for a full-page ad in that location, according to Condé Nast, publisher of The New Yorker, is $207,000 (U.S.).

The ad appeared in the April 14 issue and was sponsored by, the federal government site that is trying to convince the skeptical that the Alberta oil sands – known as the tar sands to non-Canadians – and the export pipelines that would allow the megaproject to thrive for decades are a “secure, responsible source of energy for the global market” (“Keystone” does not appear in the ad)...


Does this mean we are all our own big brothers now?



Anonymous said...

More than a little off topic...

Does ANYBODY know if we are still on the hook for the $900 million tax bill for the sale of BC Rail - or did the Harperites let that one slide?

What would the interest be on that now after all these years?

Norm Farrell said...

Just part of a $24-million international advertising blitz.

From the NatPost:
"The two-year ad campaign will target political and business leaders, as well as media organizations and domestic political advocates in the United States, Europe and Asia."

Norm Farrell said...

Say RossK, we're "domestic political advocates."

Think there's any chance of us getting any of that taxpayers' loot?

Dana said...

I see wee Ezra decided that he would be safe to be a comlete asshole amongst a bunch of environmental types.

Turns out he was right.

If the environmental movement had even as much as scintilla of real world courage the wee shit and his entire crew would have been dragged into the bushes, tied to trees and pissed on by anyone willing to donate serious money to the cause.

But as usual the people who claim to be 'fighting' for the environment are utterly incapable of doing anything meaningful beyond jerking off into their shadows.

RossK said...

'Domestic Political Advocates'?

I dunno Norm.

Isn't that one step from being a 'Community Organizer'?


RossK said...


Good question.

I'm sure the Twittmachine Follower-Collector and the Dean give we, the Cultists, the answer right away.



How would you rate the efforts of Mr. N. Young on that matter?


Dana said...

Neil has money to throw and because of his reputation some credibility. But his cred is mostly established amongst the choir and his money is made insignificant by the Koch brothers.

There's no cost of any kind to big oil and it's various mouthpieces. There's no cost to climate change deniers. There's no cost to big agra.

Every single one of the largest contributors to the hydra-headed catastrophe humanity faces are getting away with their destructive behaviours scot free and in many cases being rewarded handsomely for the destruction.

Until and unless that changes nothing else will.

So - yeah - it's all a meaningless wank.

e.a.f. said...

guys, knock it off, Community Organizer? I remember that term. Some of us once upon a time did things like that and then got co-opted by the feds.

However, I think now, Once you become one of those who either are a Bad BCer or join Harper's enemy list.

Perhaps there is something we can do in retirement, community organizer. Nice ring to it, where do we get the business cards.

RossK said...

Thanks Dana - got it.



The 'community organizer' thing, which was first flung by Sarah Palin, was meant to be tongue-in-cheek given that it was used a pejorative to suggest that Obama was, essentially, a communist during the 2008 US Presidential campaign.

When that didn't work Caribou Barbie suggested that the Democratic nominee had been palling around with...Well...You know.