Major Newspapers Publishing
Editorials on Nike v. Kasky
As of September, 2003, all of the five largest U.S. newspapers had editorialized on behalf of the Nike Corporation's controversial claim to enjoy Constitutional immunity from being sued for false advertising. Though all five had received at least three different submissions from nationally-published writers, none had published dissenting commentaries. The Rocky Mountain News and Arizona Republic were alone among the top-50 papers in allowing space for a dissent to their pro-Nike editorials (both op-eds were written by ReclaimDemocracy.org representatives). The San Francisco Chronicle also published a pro-Kasky oped. The Sacramento Bee is the only major paper we have discovered that critiqued Nike's "free speech" claims in an editorial (though it ultimately argued against Kasky).
A star (*) signifies that the newspaper (or parent corporation) is party to an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on behalf of Nike, Inc. that declares "when responsible media entities do publish controversial claims by businesses, they make sure to contrast those claims with independent analysis or opponents' counterclaims."
Circulation ranks are based on a fall 2001 survey. We cannot guarantee that this list is exhaustive, since the results are based on internet research, but all of the listed papers confirmed that any op-ed should appear online.
Audio:: listen this story as broadcast on a recent edition of Counterspin.
| Circulation Rank | Publication |
Date(s) | Title (linked to article) |
Published |
Address for Letters to
the Editor |
| #1 | USA Today* |
10/13/2002 9/15/03 |
Let
Nike Speak Up for Itself A Blow to Free Speech |
No | editor@usatoday.com |
| #2 | Wall
St. Journal |
5/19/2002 | Swoosh Goes the First Amendment | No | wsj.ltrs@wsj.com |
| #3 | New
York Times* |
12/10/2002 | When Nike Speaks | No | letters@nytimes.com |
| #4 | Los Angeles Times* | 7/3/2003 | Free Speech for Firms Too | No | letters@latimes.com |
| #5 | Washington Post* (editorialized twice for Nike + staff column - 7/9/2003 ) |
8/23/2002 4/24/2003 |
Free
Speech for Nike Let Nike Speak |
No | letters@washpost.com |
| #13 | Chicago Sun-Times | 4/28/2003 | Companies Like Nike Have Right to Self-defense | No | letters@suntimes.com |
| #15 | Arizona Republic* (Phoenix) | 5/26/2003 | Courtside with Nike | Yes
6/2/03 |
web form |
| #17 | Atlanta Journal-Constitution | 6/12/03 | It's Gotta Be the Freedom | No | web form |
| #23 | Minneapolis Star-Tribune | 9/19/03 | Even Fibs... | No | opinion@startribune.com |
| #27 | Rocky Mountain News (Denver) (twice) | 4/24/2003 6/30/03 |
Yes (in response to first) |
letters@ rockymountainnews.com |
|
| -- | Christian
Science Monitor |
4/24/2003 | Not available | No | oped@csps.com |
**The Memphis Commercial Appeal, Cincinnati Post and Rocky Mountain News (and probably several other publications) all published editorials based on a template circulated by their parent corporation, E.W. Scripps Company--a transnational media conglomerate. Each paper made superficial changes and presented the editorial as that of the local editors, without identifying its real source. We've compiled them together HERE.
The Washington Times (twice), Las Vegas Review-Journal (twice--click for 2nd), Memphis Commercial Appeal and The Oregonian (which also published pro/con op-eds) are among other top-100 papers to editorialize for Nike. Here's one example of what the papers cited here have published or declined to publish thus far: Demanding a Right to Lie is an Odd Way to Restore Trust.
Please send letters to the editor to express your views. We're happy to offer feedback on drafts or provide any needed information. Keep in mind that one good letter can be adapted to many newspapers.
We like to give credit where due, and several smaller media outlets have published views opposing Nike's claims in this case, including Pacific News Service, CommonDreams.org, the Boulder Daily Camera, TomPaine.com, and the Providence Journal. The San Francisco Chronicle (#11) was the lone top-50 paper we know of to publish an op-ed opposing Nike's claims without a pro-Nike counterpoint.
In general, we found straight news coverage of this case to be adequate, but was marred frequently by the application of marginalizing (and often inaccurate) labels to Mr. Kasky or groups arguing against Nike's claims. Anti-corporate, anti-globalization, and anti-business were among the labels used frequently. Reporters, however, were comfortable presenting the Nike Corporation and its backers without such labels, or with positive labels such as pro-business. Not a single instance of comparable descriptors like "anti-worker corporation Nike" was found. Reporting by The New York Times was the most thorough we read among major newspapers, but even their stories repeatedly used these marginalizing labels to describe us and others opposing Nike.
See our Kasky v. Nike index page for much more on this case.
