Mr. President, Don't Just Scold the Media, Fix It!

April 29, 2011

After revealing his "long form" birth certificate Wednesday, President Obama scolded the news media for letting this non-issue become a national obsession. But if President Obama really wants to restore reporting to its rightful role, he needs to act on commitments he made immediately after his inauguration. As I wrote in September 2009 for The BRAD BLOG:

Shortly after Barack Obama was sworn in as President last January, as Brad Friedman reported at the time, the new White House website "Technology" page signaled a hopeful change, and a call to re-examine the oversight of our public airwaves:

Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.

Okay, let me connect some dots here. For more than two years, GOP extremists have made the President's birth certificate an issue that has successfully permeated the country's consciousness. According to a New York Times-CBS News poll last week, 43% of the country is not sure Barack Obama was not born in this country, despite long standing factual evidence to the contrary.

How did GOP extremists manage to make a non issue such a huge issue? They used the power of broadcasting to beat the drums of paranoia into 50 million people across our land. They used the power of talk radio, which they have used to successfully marginalize Democrats and anyone else outside their narrow point of view.

That's right. According to Arbitron, 53 million people listen to talk radio every day in this country. When Glenn Beck loses his Fox "News" audience of 2 million, he still will have his radio audience of 10 million. According to Katz Radio Group (subsidiary of radio giant Clear Channel) President Mark Gray, "The weekly reach of radio is higher now than it was three decades ago -- yet the power of radio to reach and influence consumers unfortunately remains a bit of a well-kept secret."

What's an even better kept secret is that roughly 95% of this nation can hear only Right Wing Hate radio on their commercial dial. Progressive voices are purposely kept out of the national discussion on our publicly owned airwaves. (It's like gatekeepers keeping progressives out of our national parks, only much more important.)

Which takes me back to the first of the President's commitments: "ENCOURAGE DIVERSITY OF OWNERSHIP IN BROADCAST MEDIA."

How can the President keep his commitment to the American people? He can call for a bill to be introduced in Congress which would rewrite radio ownership rules, rolling them back to pre-1996 levels, which would mean one owner could have 20 FM and 20 AM radio stations, rather than the unlimited numbers they can own today following passage of the Telecommunications Act under Bill Clinton. If more than just six "persons" were in charge of radio, as is now the case, we would naturally get more diversity of political thought, more debate over real issues, and more localism, which once was the hallmark of terrestrial radio.

There has traditionally been bi-partisan support for this action, but it has lacked one key component: leadership.

In fact, as Brad Friedman would later note at Alternet, by the summer of 2009, the President's hopeful call for reform of media ownership rules on his White House "Technology" page "had been quietly excised from the White House website without a trace, apology or even an explanation."

For whatever reason he chose to back off then, hopefully the past two years have made the problem of the wholesale rightwing takeover and corruption of our public airwaves clearer to the President than ever before.

The other key media commitment the President made, at least for a short time, back in January of 2009 was to: "CLARIFY THE PUBLIC INTEREST OBLIGATIONS OF BROADCASTERS."

It is critical to understand that we the people own the airwaves. Broadcasters, (local TV and Radio stations) own a lot of fancy equipment which allows them to broadcast over OUR air. They made a business deal with us that they get to broadcast over our air ONLY if they serve the public interest. (This differs from cable TV; once you write a check to Comcast you make a business deal with them to get programming over their cables. It's an important legal distinction.)

After the Reagan administration tossed out the Fairness Doctrine, broadcasters pretended that they had no further public interest obligations. It's another falsehood the right wing is perpetuating, and the President clearly knows it; but their obligations to We the People are no longer well defined. Broadcasters still are required to write reports to the public over how they are operating, on topics like children's programming and shared service agreements between stations that reveal how one news staff is shared by more than one station, but very little else.

And now, in a quiet behind the scenes effort, broadcasters are trying to wiggle out of doing even that. In a tiny April 7th notice [PDF] by the Federal Communications Commission (the agency which is to oversee broadcasting and supposedly ensure the use of the public airwaves in the public's interest) broadcasters, in the name of reducing paperwork, are trying to squeeze a rule change through so they no longer have to report to the public at all. (We have until June 17 to fight this back. Please see this urgent action and make sure broadcasters still have to report to the real owners of the airwaves, you and me!)

On this, the President needs to take control of his FCC and formulate real public interest obligations. Commissioner Michael Copps has created a good list [PDF] for starters. President Obama needs to throw his weight into that effort.

This corporate owned media needs more than a tongue lashing: The President, our Congress and We the People need to take action -- executive, legislative, and judicial -- to restore real fairness and balance to our broadcasters and to our democracy.

The time is NOW.

* * * Learn lots more on these topics at SueWilsonReports.com and find out what public interest obligations really should look like in my documentary film, Broadcast Blues.  

Sue Wilson is a media activist, director of Public Interest Pictures' Broadcast Blues, and a 22 year veteran of broadcast journalism. Her numerous awards include Emmy, AP, RTNDA, and PRNDI for work at CBS, PBS, FOX, and NPR. She is the editor of the media criticism blog, Sue Wilson Reports.

Dear AOL Members: AOL is Censoring Your Email ... And you have never been told

 GUEST BLOGGED BY BRAD FRIEDMAN

(Originally posted on BradBlog.com 4-22-2011)

If you use an AOL email address, AOL is doing you the favor of making sure you do not receive email containing any links to BradBlog.com in it.

 

Not email from a BradBlog.com address, mind you, as if I were a spammer or something (which, obviously, I'm not), but any email from anybody that has a link to this site, or to one of our news stories.

I learned this swell news early this week when someone was kind enough to let me know that their attempts at sending a link to this site to a friend bounced back to them with an error message. That error message was "HVU:B2". What is that error?:

• 421 HVU:B2
  • There is at least one URL or domain in your e-mail that is generating substantial complaints from AOL members. Resolution will require opening a support request.

That's right, "substantial complaints" from someone, whatever that means, will result in no links to stories at The BRAD BLOG getting through to any of AOL's millions of members. And they will never know about it.

Again, these are not even emails from BradBlog.com. They are simply emails from anybody to any AOL email address which has my domain linked in the body of the email.

Neat, huh? I wonder what would happen if there were "substantial complaints from AOL members" about, say, FoxNews.com? Or MSNBC.com? Or NYTimes.com? Would that result in millions of members not being able to receive any email that links to anything at those sites? Sounds like a great way to ratfuck someone you don't care for politically, doesn't it?

So what did I do about this? What level of hell have I had to descend to over this past week in trying to solve this problem?...

So far, I've spoken to at least 10 different AOL support people on the phone, since clicking the "support request" URL they offer in the error message seen above actually takes you to someplace on the "AOL Postmaster" that doesn't actually give you the form you supposedly are to fill out to deal with this issue.

It took a day or two, and several more calls to more very nice AOL tech support people who told me they couldn't help me in the slightest, but a friend did some digging and finally figured out that this form is the one to fill out to deal with this particular problem. Or, at least, it's supposed to be.

After filling out that form, I was given a webpage with a message to the effect of: "Thank you for filling out the form. We will send a confirmation email to you with instructions on how to proceed."

That confirmation email never came, despite my having tried about 4 different times, from several different email addresses throughout the week. My friend tried as well. He also never received the promised "confirmation email."

Each time afterward I would call AOHell tech support again and was told by the still almost-always very nice tech support person that they couldn't help at all, that they couldn't escalate the call, that they couldn't allow me to speak to a supervisor, that the one and only way to deal with this problem was to fill out the form at the "AOL Postmaster" webpage --- the one that I told them each and every time I called that I had already filled out, received a promise of a "confirmation email," and then never received it.

They were very very sorry, but all that they could advise was that I fill out that form again and wait for a confirmation email that would never come.

In the meantime, today I received dozens of automated emails from my own mailing list program --- the one that I use to send out news alerts to media folks --- informing me that dozens of AOL members on that list had been automatically unsubscribed today because notes to them had bounced more than 3 times (that's one of the settings in my maillist program.)

After a few more calls to tech support today, asking nicely, then begging, then pleading for a solution, begging to speak to a supervisor, someone, anyone, who could help, I was again told there was nobody I could speak to, the call could not be escalated, I could not speak to a supervisor, that I should go fill out that form to solve this problem.

I asked for a corporate AOL phone number where there might be someone who could help, and was --- finally, after much begging --- given one. It turned out to be the 800# to the AOL billing department instead. You'll be shocked to learn they couldn't help either --- but they did recommend that I fill out that form at the "AOL Postmaster" page!

I finally looked up the AOL corporate website online, found the numbers for the "Corporate Media Inquiries" department, figuring I'd either get help or get an on the record comment about this mess and about the fact that AOL is censoring members emails for them, and spoke to another very nice person whom I told about the situation, explained that I was a journalist, not a spammer (and besides the notes being rejected didn't even need to come from my address to get rejected), mentioned the irony that I even write news for Huffington Post from time to time, and explained that I'm at wits' end, and will probably need to write a story on this at this point to let people know that AOL is censoring their users emails!

He promised to report the situation to tech support for me, he promised to elevate the matter, he promised to have someone who could fix the situation call me back hopefully today (though it was late in the afternoon on Good Friday, so he couldn't promise promise, but he promised to try.) It's several hours later, and I've received no call. But it is Good Friday, when, as everyone knows, the Internet shuts down.

But I did receive a note from an AOL user I know, who I'd explained the situation too (when they contacted me wondering why they had received a notice that they were being automatically unsubscribed from my mailing list). They said they'd asked a friend to send a note with BradBlog.com in it to them and, though "it took a while," they said it made it through!

Great! The call to the "Corporate Media Inquiries" department did the trick, I guess! Right? Not right.

I replied to my AOL friend (from a non-BradBlog.com) address, with the text of their email quoted --- the one that contained www.bradblog.com in it --- and the message immediately bounced. Same error. Same hell.

In my second-to-last ditch effort today, nearly a full week into this nightmare, nearly a full week since colleagues on my email alert list have not been receiving my emails, I once again filled out the same "AOL Postmaster" form for, perhaps, the 5th or 6th time. You know, the one that tells me after I've completed it that I'll get a "confirmation email" that never comes? This time, I got a different response after filling out the form:

Yes. A blank page. A blank page with nothing but their sidebar on it. No message. No nothing. At least its more honest.

At that point, I figured I'd better write this article if, for no other reason, some folks with AOL addresses may be wondering why they're not getting their usual email news alerts from me. This is why.

But also because the world should know how easy it apparently is to keep AOL users from getting links to "objectionable" websites if enough "substantial complaints from AOL members" are made. Neat trick, huh? Let's keep that one in our back-pocket, shall we?

Oh, and also I thought the world should know that AOL is censoring its members' email and they know nothing about it! And if your own website gets caught in that censorship there is almost nothing you can do about it!

I'm reminded of a similar incident that occurred with Comcast back in the summer of 2005 --- which we covered exclusively here --- as they, the nation's largest email provider, were not allowing emails to go to users if they contained "AfterDowningStreet.org" in the body of the email. 

We eventually were able to learn from Comcast that the problem was due to some automated anti-spam program that triggered a filter to block emails that had URLs which had suddenly become very very popular on the Internet, under the presumption that they must be spam. Or so Comcast claimed anyway. It was a very politically charged summer, and the AfterDowningStreet.org site was reporting on information which argued that Bush had determined to go to war in Iraq whether there were WMD there or not.

The problem was eventually corrected and AfterDowningStreet.org was removed from the filter. But a month or so later --- as Cindy Sheehan took up her famous stand in Crawford, TX, urging Bush to meet with her to explain the "noble cause" for which her son had been killed in Iraq --- emails containing "meetwithcindy.org" were similarly filtered out by Comcast and never reached their intended destination. We reported on that incident here.

In many ways, the Comcast incident was arguably even worse than AOL's shame, in that their system didn't even bounce an error message back to the sender. The email was sent off, and nobody ever even knew that it didn't arrive.

Well. Sorry for the long explanation, but I feel better having gotten it out of my system --- even though, as of now, it is likely that AOL members cannot get emails which contain links to this news site in them.

If my contact at AOL cares to offer a response from the "Corporate Media Inquiry" department, I will, of course, be happy to run it (as I offered him originally --- but he chose to try and solve the problem, rather than give an on-the-record comment for now, which I actually appreciate.)

But, sorry. This is all bullshit, and folks need to know.

AOL members who wish to complain, request they be allowed to receive emails with BradBlog.com in them, or would prefer to switch to an email provider that doesn't censor their mail without telling them first, can call: 800-827-6364, or they can be ignored via the AOL feedback page here.

* * *

UPDATE: Another AOL user tells me via Twitter: "I just sent from AOL to AOL with your domain and it works; only from outside AOL in fails."

That would explain why my AOL friend was able to receive an email with my domain it from another AOL user, and why my reply to her, quoting the same email, failed. Fail. Fail. AOL. Fail.

UPDATE 4/23/11, 5:11pm PT: Just a quick update for those who've asked. Yes, emails containing links to any page at BradBlog.com are still blocked when sent from any non-AOL address to an AOL user. This is more than 24 hours after I directly notified and spoke to their Corporate Media Inquiries division, who promised they'd escalate the issue. And just about a full week since I was initially notified about the problem in the first place, and began my full week of of endless tech support calls and written complaints via the form mentioned above at the "AOL Postmaster" site. Still censored.

Interestingly, someone pointed me towards an article posted in 2004 with the exact same problem with AOL. The article sounds almost identical to mine, in both the description of the problem, and the serious issues it presents about how this AOL "feature" could be used nefariously. The article is no longer available at its original address, but the cached version is at Archive.org is right here.

URGENT ACTION! Require Broadcasters to report to the Public!

April 19, 2011

The FCC is asking for public comment as to whether broadcasters should continue to be required to submit public files for public inspection.  (This is under the Paperwork Reduction Act.)  Broadcasters say almost nobody looks at the public files anyway, and claim it takes too much time and paper to produce them.  But you and I know the Public Files are critical to the public interest. (And it's part of the media activist toolkit to get the public to monitor their public files routinely.  But let's make sure we have something to monitor!). 

Story:  http://bit.ly/fccfiles

FCC Comment Request: http://1.usa.gov/keepfiles 

 

PLEASE mobilize your people to write the FCC by June 17.   So far, the FCC has received only a few comments from the public.  Let's make sure they receive thousands!  Say we the people need to have public files, but that broadcasters need to post them online.  This will not only save paper, it will give us easy access to the public interest information to which we are entitled.  (Broadcasters are behind the scenes fighting online posting tooth and nail.   Let's win this battle now.)

ADDRESSES:

Direct all PRA (Paperwork Reduction Act) comments to the Federal Communications Commission via e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov  and Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov .

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact Cathy Williams on (202) 418–2918.

I will be following this situation closely;  please let me know if you have acted, and I will follow with a report.
 

~Sue    
suewilsonreports@gmail.com

Broadcast Blues at National Conference for Media Reform - Boston World Trade Center

April 8, 2011

After a whirlwind eleven city Florida Media Reform Tour, where we reached 200,000 Floridians with a message of media reform, TODAY we bring this energy to the World Trade Center in Boston for the Free Press National Media Reform Conference!

Thousands of media reformers from all over the country are attending.  Time to see lots of old friends and make some new ones!

If you are in Boston, see us at 11 AM today in the Amphitheatre!

On the Road with the 2011 Florida Media Reform Tour!

Click to learn why media reform is so important.

Join us at Unitarian Universalist Churches Across the State!

Fort Lauderdale:  Fri, Mar 25  ...  West Palm Beach:  Sat, Mar 26 

Melbourne: Mon, Mar 28 ...  Orlando: Tues, Mar 29

Ormond Beach: Wed, Mar 30  ...   Jacksonville:  Thur, Mar 31

St. Augustine: Fri, Apr 1  ...  Gainesville:  Sat, Apr 2

Tampa:  Sun, Apr 3  ...  Venice:  Mon, Apr 4  ...  Fort Myers:  Tues, Apr 5

Full Details Here! 

Meeting the Press:

The Nicole Sandler Show 
The Surreal News
 The Orlando Sentinel  

Upcoming Media Appearances:

Wednesday, March 30, 6:25 PM: 
The Jumping Mullet Report, WSLR

Thursday March 31, 10:05 AM:  
Radioactivity:  Live Call in with Rob Lorei 


Friday April 1, Noon
Sound Off With Sasha, WGCU
 

Right Wing Hit Media 400: "Disabling Journalism to Destroy Progressive Thought"

Case study:   James O'Keefe's "Project Veritas"  

Goal:  Defund National Public Radio 

Tactics: 
1) Set up phony Muslim Organization to offer $5 million donation to NPR;

2) Secretly videotape meeting between NPR fundraiser and phony Muslim donors;

3) Cut out all ethical statements by NPR;  edit video to mislead viewers about bias by NPR reporters and staff;

4) Farm video out to all major news organizations;  get media critic Howard Kurtz to do softball TV interview ignoring the deception; specifically get FOX news to promote the deception as fact.

5) Leverage publicity so the GOP can introduce an emergency House bill to defund NPR. 

"Project Veritas" is textbook O'Keefe, whose phony ACORN story (discounted by the BradBlog but promoted by the New York Times, who reluctantly issued a partial correction) effectively closed down that community organizing group, despite attorney generals' investigations that ACORN had been duped by O'Keefe and had done nothing illegal. (O'Keefe, however, has pled guilty to breaking federal laws in similar sting operations.) Similar tactics have recently been employed against Planned Parenthood.

But here's the real story:  this new model of attacking politcal opponents by staging outlandish phony hidden camera stings is just the latest of strategies developed over a generation to blur the line between fact and fiction. 

Eleven City Florida Media Reform Tour Featuring BROADCAST BLUES!

BROADCASTBLUES

2011 Florida

Media Reform Tour

sponsored by the

Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of Florida
MARCH 25- APRIL 5, 2011 

CLICK HERE FOR FULL SCHEDULE AND DETAILS!

Join us to learn what YOU can do to improve today's media!

Plus - Click Here for Your Media Activist Toolkit!

Could This Be the Moment? (For Real Media Reform)

Note:  This piece was originally published on The Brad Blog 
under the title "Sheriff Dupnik is Right:  Radio Lies, Our Culture Dies."  
But after President Obama's remarks at the Tucson Memorial, 
I am changing my tone - a bit.

January 12, 2011

A moment in the culture. 

 

A moment like Columbine, like Fort Hood, like Oklahoma City, yet different; different because the madman's rampage that targeted Tucson, Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was predictable. 

It's hot in Tucson --- temperatures soar to 117 degrees in the summertime. But that's nothing compared to the political heat generated recently in this community just an hour north of the Mexican border. Nowhere in the country were the 'Tea Parties' angrier than in Arizona; rage over healthcare and immigration reform boiled over in Tucson.

It had been bad already, even before Obama had been elected to office in 2008. Take a look at this remarkable list of eliminationist rhetoric coming from the Right, as compiled as long ago as March 2007. But, as if that wasn't horrible enough, things have gotten even far worse since then.

Who wouldn't be incensed? Reports of increased crime, beheadings on the borders, government takeover of health care, death panels. Given all that, who would not stand and fight to protect their grandmothers?

If all that were actually true. But of course, it is not true. Those reports and other fabrications like them are a creation of Right Wing Talk Radio. It isn't just the vitriol spewing from Savage and Hannity and Boortz and others, it is what is behind the vitriol: a genuine fear born of propaganda. And as a culture, we the people are buying into it.

It's Radio

January 8, 2011

My heart is heavy as I write this tonight.  I bless Tuscon Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and Federal Judge John Rolls and all those who died and all those who live in the wake of the senseless but predictable attack on democracy in Tuscon, Arizona today.

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, in his press conference this evening about the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Giffords' life, specifically cited vitriol in Radio as a culprit in the crime.
 
Radio.  Hate Radio.  Radio that misinforms.  Radio that kills.  One sided radio.   50 million listeners.  

Think there's nothing we can do about it?  Think again.  We can.  And we must.

     Radio Speech is Not Free Speech!   ..  Hate Radio and the War on Immigration

     Save Talk Radio?  Really?     ...     It's War.  Media War.

There's much more on this site.  Please... keep reading.   The democracy is at stake.  Lives are at stake.

Right Wing Hijacks Radio: GOP Wins!

Think radio doesn't matter?  Think again!

Compare these maps representing numbers and sizes of  "Conservative", 
"Right Wing" radio stations and "Liberal" radio stations across the USA:

Then look at a map of the 2010 Midterm Election Results:

About 50 million Americans listen to Right Wing Talk Radio.

Now here's the SCARY part:
Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have far more reach on Radio than Fox News.
You won't believe it until you
See These Charts!  

Radio is still the country's number one source of news and information,
but fewer than 10% of the country is able to hear any progressive talk radio.
Those who do tend to vote for more Democrats than those who do not.

How did this happen?

See the story from Broadcast Blues:

   More on how the media became broken and how to fix it from SueWilsonReports: 

 PLUS

Surf the blog for clips of the Documentary Media Reform film, 

Broadcast Blues!

Hey, Talkers, Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Fairness Doctrine?

Originally published December 14, 2008 in the Sacramento Bee

     What scares Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and now George Will even more than a Democratic-run government?    The prospect of restoring fairness to the public airwaves.
  
     They have good reason to be afraid.

     It's been well documented that 90 percent of radio talkers are conservative, and 22 percent of Americans cite talk radio as their primary source of news. What's less known is that for more than two years, right-wing hosts have been lambasting the Fairness Doctrine on thousands of radio stations nationwide, convincing unwitting listeners that fairness is unfair, and that localism in broadcasting is bad for communities.

     Pre-Ronald Reagan, that FCC rule said broadcasters had to provide a reasonable opportunity for contrasting viewpoints on issues of public importance. Reagan's Federal Communications Commission threw out the Fairness Doctrine, paving the way for conservatives and Republicans to dominate political speech.   No question it's made an impact on elections: In 1994, when Republicans took the House of Representatives for the first time in 50 years, they made Rush Limbaugh an honorary member of Congress.

     Only 10 percent of radio talkers are liberal, and most liberal shows can only be found on small stations.  But independent research reveals that areas of the country that are exposed to progressive talk radio are now starting to vote blue.  "Air America Radio" and the "Ed Schultz Show" have been on the air for four years and are gradually increasing their number of stations.  Is it a coincidence that states which now hear a liberal viewpoint – states like Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Florida and Virginia – all went for Obama?  Or that the surprise swing states of North Dakota, Montana and even Arizona now hear liberal talk?

Citizens United - a Media Reform Issue

December 4, 2010

Because of the widely unpopular Citizens United decision by the Roberts' Supreme Court, which held that corporate funding of campaign ads cannot be limited under the First Amendment, this 2010 midterm election cycle is seeing five times more outside spending than occurred in the last midterm.  As noted in Bill Mann's Huffington Post piece, the real beneficiaries of all that spending are broadcasters  (broadcasters who have a legal obligation to serve the public interest.)

"The people who are making most -- over 90%, by most estimates -- of the money from all the obnoxious and ubiquitous ads this fall have names unfamiliar to most people: Belo, Young Broadcasting, Cox, Fisher Broadcasting, Media General. And big names, of course, like ABC, Tribune, Gannett, NBC Universal."

But there are a lot of other names which are unfamiliar to most people, names like "American Crossroads." "America's Families First Action Fund."  "American Action Network." "Commonsense Ten." (These, according to the Washington Post, are among the biggest special interest group midterm spenders.)

That leads me to question the value of the current idea in Washington that by merely "disclosing" who is funding campaign ads, voters will somehow be able to separate fact from fiction.  As Meredith McGeeHee notes on the Campaign Legal Center blog,

"Congress should take heed of the Supreme Court’s 8-to-1 ruling in Citizens United in favor of disclosure, stating that such disclosure is not only constitutional, but is the expected and indeed necessary counter-balance to the new corporate right to expend unlimited funds in US elections.

"Justice Kennedy’s 8-1 majority Opinion stated on this point: 'The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way.

"This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.'”

The problem is that outside the Beltway, a majority of people who are watching local TV news peppered with campaign ads don’t even know who George Soros is.  Lindsay Lohan, yes, Dick Armey? Doubtful.  Really, just disclosing who paid for ads is no match for the magic of Madison Avenue Mad Men.