Local businesses underwrite right-wing rants

Thanks, Eric, for giving us a heads up on this outrage. I will do the same as you.

Eric, I was amazed that the editor published a critical letter in this issue and it contained the great line, "Also, I think you should re-name your magazine to "The world according to Bernie and please only read this rag is you live inside the Beltline.' With sincere regrets that you are so small minded."

BTW, our copy is mailed to the house and this is the first issue that I had looked at and only because of the cover. I attended an event the other evening at Bay 7 at the American Tobacco Campus and saw that art piece on the cover.

I also noted an ad for University Square on p. 41.

Eric,

Some additional CH advertisers (as found on the advertiser index on the Raleigh Metro website) include: Eastgate Shopping Ctr., UNC Healthcare, UNC Womens Health, UNC Press, La Residence and Playmakers. I'm sure that there are more as well. I wonder how many of these organizations ever take the time to really see what kind of publications their advertising dollars are appearing in.

I don't see what the big deal is. The man's beliefs are onerous, yes, but businesses aren't in business to make political statements. Even in Chapel Hill, they're in business to make money, and -- guess what? -- right-wingers buy things, too. I wouldn't put my business's money into such filth, but that's the right of any advertiser, and to (in essence) tell them to stop trying to make money just because some idiot writes some silly, offensive columns in this publication is absurd.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." --Edmund Burke

Chris, is it absurd to notify businesses that their commerce might suffer from their decision to advertise in this magazine?

Is your solution really to just stand by and be a spectator? That there is no chance to effect change in this instance?

What happened to the idealism of the young? What made you so cynical?

Chris - Businesses do make political statements. Everybody does. Every organization does. Whether or not a business owner(s) admits to making a political statement is no measure of whether or not he/she is making a poltical statement but rather it is a measure of how conscious they are of their place in the community.

David,

You ask whether "standing by and doing nothing" is an option and quote Edmund Burke at me as if I've never thought about his words, but you're missing the point: I see no evil here. Nor do I see any reason to effect change.

If y'all don't want to sleep at the Carolina Inn or get a pedicure at Aveda because they advertise in this magazine, more power to you. Ruby's right: In a free-market society, we vote with our dollars.

But it's worth thinking about what the end goal of this little boycott would be: Silencing an opinion we find difficult to swallow. I, for one, think this magazine's greater good is to promote local businesses, and I also think rational people on both sides of the political spectrum will ignore Mr. Reeves' quaint, useless, train-wreck rants. Given that, and given my belief that it is no sin for a business to advertise in a publication with unpopular views, I'm sticking by my original point. And I think that is much more progressive than the reaction we've seen here: "Crazy Republican! Bad! Boycott! Protest! Silence!"

Chris, Mr. Reeves has the right to express his opinions in any way he chooses so long as it doesn't hurt anyone. So do I.

Why would you think his freedom of expression is more important than mine? Why can he peddle his swill but I can't express myself by calling for a boycott?

Perhaps the difference between us, Chris, is that I am willing to do battle with Mr. Reeves' opinions. I will do it with all the passion I am capable. I don't mind spectators, really, because moral action is a personal decision.

And here's an economic argument. The free market ideal of perfect competition is based on five criteria, one of which is perfect information. Think of me as the guy who is improving the market structure by providing information to the consumers (advertisers in this case)--information I am not sure they have. After the information is given, I am willing to allow businesses decide whether maintaining their advertising in Raleigh Metro Magazine is a good investment of their advertising dollars. You didn't know that I was actually promoting and strengthening the free market, did you!

BTW, do you think that local businesses will suffer if this magazine folds as a result of our efforts? No, sir. There are more advertising media out there than you can shake a stick at. The magazine's demise would create a vacuum that could only be measured in nanoseconds.

One last note, Chris, in case you would like to bring this point up. The right to free expression is not a right to express an opinion without consequences. The first amendment secures the right of citizens to be free of government intervention and censorship in expressing themselves. But even that has certain limitations. I hope Eric can weigh in on this matter of law and fundamental rights.

Despite this, I am all for people expressing their views as a matter of conscience. We all just have to live with the consequences of that expression.

I'm entirely in favor of aggressive personal action to express satisfaction or dissatisfaction with any business, publication, website, whatever. In fact, I've cancelled my subscription to the N&O so many times, I can hardly count them (because of their lame editorial positions).

Sometimes the way we vote is with our feet and our pocketbooks . . . and organized action is almost always more effective.

Here's a list of their advertisers: http://www.metronc.com/advertising/

I'll be interested to hear the response of the local businesses.

Three quick comments.

First, Bernie is a Democrat, or at least he was the last time I asked him. Perhaps he has changed parties.

Second, while some of Bernie's points as reported by Eric don't seem as outrageous as he suggested (but I would say that, right?), the first point is quite disturbing. If Bernie truly characterized his fellow black citizens as a group in such a way, he should be called on it.

Third, to David, while I agree that some misguided indviduals associate the free market with “perfect-competition model" based on "perfect information," none of that really makes any sense. The market process exists precisely because we lack perfect information. It is a means of gathering and communicating dispersed bits of information so as to coordinate economic decisions. If perfection existed on Earth, there would be no need for markets at all.

John,

The perfect competition model is economics shorthand for saying insofar as information (among other criteria) increases to the point of perfection, so does competition. It is the point at which "economic forces operate unimpeded", according to my class notes. It's an elegant model that has nothing to do with assuming that perfection actually exists on Earth. It serves as a good starting point in determining what might constitute market failures.

The misguided individuals of which you speak of include every economist in my library, as well as every economist I have studied under thus far.

If you could supply me with some references, maybe some books on the subject, that would counter all that I have learned, I would be happy to review them. I'm always open to new and exciting ideas.

Folks (Mark C., David M., others):

I have no problems with Eric, OP readers, or anybody else failing to provide money that would help promulgate the ideas of (as Mark C. rightfully puts it) "a hateful, ignorant jerk." I, myself, would have a hard time providing money to any of these businesses -- if I actually patronized any of them in the first place, which I don't. And I've said as much: "If y'all don't want to sleep at the Carolina Inn or get a pedicure at Aveda because they advertise in this magazine, more power to you. Ruby's right: In a free-market society, we vote with our dollars." So please don't get on my case for trying to inhibit your right to free speech; I haven't, and I never would, because doing so is anathema to my belief system.

I am simply saying that we're getting our panties all up in a bunch for something that isn't a big deal. Is Bernie Reeves a racist idiot? Judging from the quotes Eric provided us, yes. But instead of getting on advertisers for underwriting these views, perhaps we would be better off spending our time fighting REAL injustice. The only truly offensive things Reeves said were his comments about African Americans, and as I've already said, anybody with half a brain would recognize the silliness of those statements.

I'm starting to feel like a broken record, though, as I imagine everyone else is. I hope we can agree to disagree without everyone thinking I'm a racist idiot, which anybody who knows me recognizes is just wrong.

Chris, I am sure others on this blog probably feel I am a broken record about some things. But these are great people to sound off from when perspective is lacking or if one's position needs refining or you simply want to know how others feel about an issue. I have changed my mind or modified by stance on a number of issues on the strength of the arguments I have read on this blog.

I feel like I could meet anyone who regularly comments on OP and duck into a Frankin Street eatery with them for a beer. It's happened many times already.

What the hell did we do before blogging?

Duck into a Franklin Street eatery for a beer, I imagine.

Which I can do now, in case you're interested. :-)

For what it's worth, I didn't call for a boycott of these Chapel Hill businesses.

I meant precisely what I wrote: I am contacting the businesses to ask them whether they're aware of the magazine's political viewpoint (because this is, as I said, the only political material in the magazine), and if they are, why they want to be affiliated with those views.

I strongly suspect that they are not aware of the magazine's political viewpoint. If they are aware of it, and tell me that they endorse it (which, frankly, I do not anticipate), then I suppose I'll think twice before patronizing them in the future.

The likelier thing, I think, is that they'll tell me they're not aware of it. (That's what happened with the one business I've managed to contact thus far.) And then, after the conversation, they will be.

What would I do if a business, after becoming aware of the magazine's political tone, continued to advertise anyway? I'm not sure. I suppose I'd assume either that they shared Bernie Reeves' worldview, or that they didn't share it but didn't think that advertising in the magazine reflected an endorsement of the his worldview, or that they didn't share it and thought it might be seen as an endorsement of his worldview, but thought it wise, from a business standpoint, to continue advertising anyway. I doubt that I'd stop patronizing any of them because of this one thing. (I'm not entirely sure about that). But I do think that drawing attention to the magazine's one expressed political worldview serves a useful function, in that it helps insure that these companies have all relevant information in front of them when they make their advertising decisions.

Eric,

That's quite a reasonable stance to take. I apologize for misinterpreting what you originally wrote.

Eric, I think it's a reasonable stance and as a businessperson have no problem with someone asking me about how and why I spend my advertising dollars the way I do.

I would venture that many of those businesses are unaware of the editorial views expressed in the magazine. As you stated, the mag looks like something your realtor might give you, and it may very well be that the advertising pitch has been framed in exactly that way and that the person buying the advertising isn't aware of the editorial views expressed.

In fact, it's quite likely that Aveda or the Carolina Inn (with larger ad budgets) has a third party managing their local advertising purchases and placement and that no one in the local offices is even aware that the ad agency has placed advertising in this magazine.

David:

The most famous economic schools that properly describe why "imperfections" -- the cost of gathering and disseminating information, the futility of central planning, and others -- create markets are the Chicago School (Friedman, Stigler, Becker, Knight, etc.) and the Austrian School (Menger, von Mises, Hayek, Schumpeter, etc.). Unfortunately, modern economics instruction remains heavily influenced by Pigovians and Keynesians, which is much like having modern geography instruction heavily influenced by Ptolemy and medieval.

On the larger issue, I think it is quite appropriate for Eric or anyone else in a free society to act on their principles in making buying decisions or urging others to do the same. It is also appropriate, likely even, that many well-meaning individuals will conclude that the marginal value of making a political statement or attempting to influence businesses on political matters is offset by the marginal cost of foregoing a good buy, be it a consumer product or an advertisement. For example, it might be more effective to buy a product from an objectionable firm based on price and then use the savings to contribute to a worthy political cause.

Oops. Got distracted. The end of the first graph above should read “medieval monks.”

As one of the business that advertised in Metro, I will say that my decision to run ads in the magazine was based on the profile of their readership. The people who read this magazine are, according to the ad reps, college educated and upper middle class. This is the market my business appeals to. I wasn't aware of the political rantings in the magazine.

When Eric pointed them out to me, I realized that I beleive I should judge Mr. Reeves on his 30 year career in the Triangle. He was the publisher of the Spectator, a weekly rag that I actually once wrote for (theater reveiws) which focused on art and culture in the Triangle. The Spectator was an integral contributor to the growth of the art scene and to making all of the Triangle aware of what was going on in the different cities.

Hal Crowther wrote for them as did many other journalists in the area. The Spectator (http://indyweek.com/durham/2002-09-25/news.html) was a great thing for Durham and Chapel Hill for twenty years and was the brainchild and baby of Mr. Reeves. It published left and right wing views. I miss it to this day.

So, I think I will continue to advertise in Metro, if I can track that doing so is good for my business. The main point of Metro is to showcase art and culture in the Triangle and that's a goal (once the Spectator's too) that I share and support.

Dabney,

I urge you to defer your decision to advertise until you've thoroughly studied the Pigovian model and properly contrasted it with the Austrian School's approach while factoring in the subtle influences of Stigler as well as Steinbrenner (practitioner of the under-appreciated Swinovist model).

I run my husband's medical practice. He is Greg Ruff.

And, Mark, I will check into those deeply intriguing models as soon as I can take a break from reality.

Thanks, Mark, in the middle of exams I really needed a good belly laugh.

I appreciate my friend Dabney's posting her thinking about the issue, and I can certainly respect the decision. Naturally I too support the Metro's overall goal of supporting the arts and culture in the Triangle. I am hard-pressed to see how Reeves' political rantings do anything other than detract from that goal, but again ... it's his magazine, not mine.

Dabney's posting might be read to imply that I am calling on people to "judge" Bernie Reeves or his entire career or his commitment to the Triangle.

I'm not.

I'm calling on people--the advertisers in his magazine, especially--to examine the extreme political cast he chooses to give to this particular publication of his.

Eric, it's clear you are calling on those who advertise to judge Mr. Reeves on his writings. I think that's reasonable. I am choosing to judge Mr. Reeves on more than just his writing which I, being me, also think is reasonable.

I do think that many writers today do take extreme views in part because extreme views are easier to express. I suspect that were Mr. Reeves to write with more ambivalence, his columns would take up more room than just the back page of his magazine. I know when I write for public consumption I am often stumped by how hard it is to write fairly, and to look at the many facets of most issues. And then, when I do write something that I consider measured, I may be quoted out of context and made to look more partisan than I feel I am.

Mark:

Well scored. Thanks for the snicker.

"I do think that many writers today do take extreme views in part because extreme views are easier to express. I suspect that were Mr. Reeves to write with more ambivalence, his columns would take up more room than just the back page of his magazine. I know when I write for public consumption I am often stumped by how hard it is to write fairly, and to look at the many facets of most issues. And then, when I do write something that I consider measured, I may be quoted out of context and made to look more partisan than I feel I am."

Dabney,

Mr. Reeves is not struggling with his words. His meaning is clear. Excusing the extremist views of someone because of the difficulty of writing in ways that are both brief and "ambivalent" has to be, quite frankly, the worse kind of rationalization.

I am imagining Martin Luther King sitting in his jail cell in Birmingham writing his letter to the clergy, eight men of the cloth who had written a joint statement condemning the march in their city. I am imagining Mr. King's sadness and disappointment in their support of the police. He is sad and disappointed that they had missed the opportunity to do and say the right things. He is sad and disappointed because it is sad and disappointing when people are given the opportunity to speak out in support for human rights and yet fail to do so.

People who read Mr. Reeves bigotry and excuse it are the moral heirs of the clergy in Birmingham.

I apologize to those who are discomfited by my zeal, but about some things I will not compromise. You will find me solidly against Mr. Reeves on this issue, and against his apologists. You will always find me on the side of the oppressed fighting the oppressors. And I will withstand any amount of public ridicule or personal harm in doing so.

David, I'm happy the world has folks like you in it. Zeal on!

Dabney, where have I asked advertisers to "judge Mr. Reeves"?

I have asked them to reflect on whether they wish to associate their businesses with a magazine that has the political content that Mr. Reeves chooses to give Metro.

For all I know, Bernie Reeves is a prince of a guy, and do all sorts of great things for the region. But if customers of my business were to come in to me with my ad opposite one of his columns and say, "do *you* think that John Murtha is a traitor to the United States and that John Kerry's politics are "Soviet-inspired" and that blacks are "rude in public," I don't think I'd soothe my customer a great deal by saying, "Well, remember that the publisher of the magazine and the author of that column is a good guy who has done a lot for the Triangle."

That's the point I'm making.

Eric, I am sorry. In my head, it's fine to judge people. I think it's part of what makes humans human. I wasn't dissing you.

I rarely write on this site and I have to say, wow, you guys take your postings very very seriously. I feel impelled to offer my apologies if I have offended anyone!

Dabney, I'm a passionate, sometimes self-righteous Hispanic with a flair for hyperbole. And those are my good traits. :)

I hope I haven't offended YOU. When I see something that strikes me as injust, I need to take a couple of deep breaths before I write anything.

I hope you continue to contribute to this site.

If it helps illuminate this discussion, I can add my own personal data point:

I experienced this mag before finding this string on the blog. I had an experience much as Eric describes. This thing showed up in my mail box, I thought it looked like an interesting piece, and I picked it out of the pile first to get a look at it. Then I read it...and read it again because I couldn't believe the writer intended the meaning I was picking up on.

My shock was as much about how completely out of place this type of commentary was in a "local color" magazine as it was a reaction to the extremes of the opinion. At a gut level, I just can't help but feel like the agenda of this magazine is/was to "look" normal, friendly and community based, but to be a vehicle for some sort of personal agenda. Creepy.

I really doubt most of the advertisers were made aware of the editorial content...and I think letting them know would be a welcome service to them.

I normally wouldn't make such a personal/subjective comment part of a useful public discussion, but this one really seems like a slippery, slimmy monster that needs to be pulled out from under a rock. (FYI, I still pull this mag out of the mail first...to be sure to get into the trash ASAP...I know - sounds petty, but I am hoping to do my part to make this a short-lived publication.)

The North Carolina Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance provides advice on how to opt-out of junk mail:
http://www.p2pays.org/main/junk.asp

Reeves seems like a fairly odious character, but you're mischaracterizing his opinion on African-Americans. Here's what he actually said:

Now for my Man of the Year for 2004. Last year I chose President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. This year it's Bill Cosby, who finally looked his fellow black Americans straight in the eye and let them know that blaming white people is not the answer to their problems. He also pointed out the problems he sees: rude behavior in public, misusing the language, abusing opportunities for education and committing crime far out of proportion to their percentage of the population. It is indeed high time that the black leadership ceases exploiting white guilt and addresses the facts of the matter. The illegitimacy rate among blacks is an unbelievable 70 percent; the education gap is severe and the violent crime issue cripples the public peace.

The most remarkable thing I found about that piece was that he blamed unions for the Kennedy Assassination.

First, Bernie is a Democrat, or at least he was the last time I asked him. Perhaps he has changed parties.

Hmmm...today's N&O carries a "Joe McCarthy was right" letter from Mr. Reeves.

McCarthy and spies

According to the Metro magazine ad rep, their readership is only about a third Republican. Democrats and, to a lesser extent, Independents make up their readership. The ad rep said many of their readers disagree with Mr. Reeves, but read the magazine any way.

"receive" or "read"? And does glancing at the cover on the way to the recycling bin count as "reading"?

I don't think that I've mischaracterized Reeves on African Americans. He praises Bill Cosby for stating what Reeves says are "the facts of the matter" to "black Americans" about "their problems."

(And that sets to one side the fact that in a year that included the deaths of Ronald Reagan and Christopher Reeves, the reelection of George W. Bush, and the tsunami, Bernie Reeves chose to single out Bill Cosby as Man of the Year for some comments about problems among blacks.)

Stated differently, is it not Bernie Reeves' view that African Americans are guilty of "rude behavior in public, misusing the language, abusing opportunities for education and committing crime far out of proportion to their percentage of the population?" Does Reeves not characterize "the education gap" as one of "their problems?"

I suggest another approach to the junk mail problem.

The RETURN TO SENDER method.

It is obvious that junk mail represents a theft of our personal time. It is unethical to force a message or an item on anyone. If you don't want it, you shouldn't have to take it.

I keep a roll of stickers on my desk with "RETURN TO SENDER" printed on them. I stick them on my junk mail & mail them. If a lot more people did it, something would have to give. If you are sick of being a postal punk, join in. It is more satisfying than cussing all the way to the recycling station.

I dunno, Mark -- cussing can be really satisfying sometimes.

Yeah, but's its like the proverbial pine tree falling in the pulp-wood stand when no-one's around...

Bernie wrote me a note today responding to this thread, beginning with what he termed Eric Miller's “comments about me on the blog” regarding Bernie's alleged racism that were “patently untrue and libelous, as demonstrated for the public to see over my 25+ years as an editor in the Triangle community. As is often the case in these matters, the blog editor [meaning Eric, the poster, presumably] is using fragments of my comments out of context.”

Bernie then pointed out that if you follow the link provided by Eric for that first point, the one seeming to invoke race, that Bernie was actually discussing (and praising) the viewpoint of Bill Cosby, not offering his own characterization of “African Americans, as a group,” to use Eric's phrase.

Here's the full quote from Bernie's column:

“Now for my Man of the Year for 2004. Last year I chose President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. This year it's Bill Cosby, who finally looked his fellow black Americans straight in the eye and let them know that blaming white people is not the answer to their problems. He also pointed out the problems he sees: rude behavior in public, misusing the language, abusing opportunities for education and committing crime far out of proportion to their percentage of the population. It is indeed high time that the black leadership ceases exploiting white guilt and addresses the facts of the matter. The illegitimacy rate among blacks is an unbelievable 70 percent; the education gap is severe and the violent crime issue cripples the public peace.

Bill Cosby is why America is great: the unexpected hero.”

Obviously, reasonable people may disagree about the point Bernie was attributing to Cosby, or his own conclusion, as they may other selections of Bernie's writing. But I agree with him that the original post mischaracterized the nature of this passage.

I have urged Bernie to respond directly on this thread, as well.

The item about which John Hood reports Bernie Reeves is complaining was not out of context for a number of reasons, the most simple of which is that it supplied the context: it, like the larger piece of which it was a part, invited the reader to the original context in which the quoted words appeared and provided a link to that original context.

And yes, Mary, I think it quite fair to consider Cosby's words as reflecting Bernie Reeves' views. Reeves named him Man of the Year, for God's sake, and called him a "hero," for uttering these quoted words--for "looking ... black Americans in the eye" and telling them about the "problems" that are (and these are Reeves' words, not Cosby's) "the facts of the matter."

Are we to believe that these views are not Reeves'?

If Mr. Reeves does decide to put in an appearance here, as John has urged him to do, I hope he'll also let us know how he was so sure that the the "Chinese" that he saw in that Smithfield gas station were not Americans.

"He also pointed out the problems he sees: rude behavior in public, misusing the language, abusing opportunities for education and committing crime far out of proportion to their percentage of the population."

John,

I want to see in writing, by Mr. Reeves, a statement on this thread, that although he praises Cosby, he does not agree with Cosby's characterization of blacks.

If he cannot do that, then what does it matter whether he characterized blacks in this way, or that he agrees with the characterization? Ideas are ideas, John. You don't remove responsibility for a statement merely because you endorse it rather than state it in the first place. When you endorse an idea, it becomes a part of who you are, good or bad.

Simply put, Mr. Reeve's is using playground logic. "I didn't say it, he did. I just repeated what he said and then told everyone he was a good guy. Why are you looking at me?"

Do you understand, John, how very sleazy and deceitful that argument sounds? He's not fooling anyone, believe me.