Widespread Editorial Support for Nike or One Corporation Deceiving Readers Nationwide?
The following near-identical editorials from the Rocky Mountain News, Memphis Commercial Appeal, Cincinnati Post all were based on a template circulated by their parent corporation and media conglomerate, E.W. Scripps Company. Each paper made superficial changes and presented the editorial as that of the local editors (at least online), without identifying its real source.
We encourage local readers of these publications to express their thoughts on this practice to the editors, and perhaps in letters to the editor of competing papers where they exist.
Court
Disappoints on Nike Ruling
Published in the Rocky Mountain News June 30, 2003
rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_2077001,00.html
In the 1990s, Nike became the target of a labor activists who charged that its shoes were being manufactured in Third World sweatshops.
Nike fought back, commissioning a report by former U.N. ambassador Andrew Young who found that Nike was not mistreating its workers. Nike was then sued by activist Marc Kasky under California state laws intended to prohibit misleading advertising.
The suit was dismissed by a lower court and the dismissal was upheld by an appeals court. But the state supreme court said the case should go to trial. The fact that California did not make a "final judgment" gave the U.S. Supreme Court the pretext to duck an important, if complicated, free speech case. Unfortunately, it issued a one-sentence dismissal, sending the case back to a California court.
The issue: Does the First Amendment protect commercial speech and, if so, how much? To us, the answer seems simple: The First Amendment itself makes no distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech. But so long as the Nike case remains alive, corporations might be unwilling to speak out on issues for fear of being sued.
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Sandra Day O'Connor, wrote: "In my view, however, the questions presented directly concern the freedom of Americans to speak about public matters in public debate, no jurisdictional rule prevents us from deciding those questions now, and delay itself may inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights of free speech without making the issue significantly easier to decide later on." Exactly.
Muzzling
Nike
Published in the Cincinnati Post June 27, 2003
http://www.cincypost.com/2003/06/27/editb062703.html
In the 1990s, Nike became the target of a campaign by labor and antiglobalization activists who charged that its shoes were being manufactured in Third World sweatshops.
Nike fought back aggressively, defending itself with press releases and letters to the editor and to key customers in university athletic departments. It commissioned a report by former U.N. ambassador Andrew Young who found that Nike was not mistreating its workers.
For its vigorous defense of its good name, Nike was sued by activist Marc Kasky under California state laws intended to prohibit false or misleading advertising. Frankly, this was an attempt to muzzle the company. Unable to answer its critics, the company would be helpless while its reputation was assaulted.
If Nike was engaged in fraudulent conduct, that should have been a matter for state law enforcement. Nike's conduct as a corporate citizen should properly be thrashed out in the forum of public opinion with both sides free to weigh in.
But the suit was filed and dismissed by a lower court. An appeals court upheld the dismissal, but the state supreme court said the case should go to trial. The fact that the California did not make a "final judgment" gave the U.S. Supreme Court the pretext to duck an important, if complicated, free speech case. It issued a one-sentence dismissal.
The issue: does the First Amendment protect commercial speech and, if so, how much? To us, the answer seems simple: The First Amendment itself makes no distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech. While this suit remains unresolved, corporations, to the detriment of the public, might be unwilling to speak out on issues -- product safety, labor conditions, environmental issues -- for fear of being sued.
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Sandra Day O'Connor, wrote:
"In my view, however, the questions presented directly concern the freedom of Americans to speak about public matters in public debate, no jurisdictional rule prevents us from deciding those questions now, and delay itself may inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights of free speech without making the issue significantly easier to decide later on." Exactly.
Muzzling
Nike
Published in the Memphis Commercial Appeal June 30, 2003
http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/opinion/article/0,1426,MCA_536_2073499,00.html
IN THE 1990s, labor and anti-globalization activists accused Nike of making shoes in Third World sweatshops. The company fought that charge aggressively, commissioning a report by former United Nations ambassador Andrew Young, who found Nike did not mistreat its workers.
An activist sued Nike under California laws intended to prohibit false or misleading advertising. If Nike had engaged in fraud, that would have been a proper matter for state law enforcement. But its conduct as a corporate citizen should be thrashed out in the forum of public opinion, with both sides free to weigh in.
A lower court dismissed the suit and an appeals court upheld the dismissal, but the state supreme court said the case should go to trial. The fact that California did not make a "final judgment" gave the U.S. Supreme Court the pretext, in its just-concluded term, to duck an important if complicated free speech case.
The extent to which the First Amendment protects commercial speech is an important issue. While this suit remains unresolved, corporations may be unwilling to speak out on such matters as product safety, labor conditions or environmental protection, for fear of being sued.
Justice Stephen Breyer wanted the high court to hear the Nike case. He wrote that the "questions presented directly concern the freedom of Americans to speak about public matters in public debate." He added that "no jurisdictional rule prevents us from deciding those questions now, and delay itself may inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights of free speech without making the issue significantly easier to decide later on." He's right.
Go to full record of major newspapers' editorial coverage of Nike v. Kasky
