Tag Archives: Slate

Who’s Coughing Up the Cash for Full-Page Ads Touting Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and flipping through the Boston Globe, when I came across this full-page ad on A3.

What the hell, Doc – this guy’s calling card is his anti-vaccine jihad, but no mention of it in this costly  five-figure advertisement? Is the Super PAC just trying to inoculate him?

– Vax Vexed

Dear VV:

First of all, you gotta admire any full-page ad in a major metropolitan newspaper that starts off with a quote about being silenced.

Beyond that, now that we know who the bad guys are, let’s take a look at the purported good guys, starting with the outfit that paid for the ad, American Values 2024. Its website fails to list any of the Super PAC’s good guy funders, but it does showcase Our Team.

The website also spotlights the bad guys at ABC News.

ABC News makes a point of letting viewers know they censored RFKJ

ABC News made a bizarre announcement that they censored RFKJ’s statements about COVID, vaccines and autism following an interview with him on Thursday, 4/27 that included a discussion of the ongoing censorship of him by the corporate media.

“We should note that during our conversation, Kennedy made false claims about the COVID-19 vaccines,” ABC interviewer Linsey Davis said following the interview. “We’ve used our editorial judgment in not including extended portions of that exchange in our interview.” Davis added.

At this point we will just quote Kennedy, “Show me where I am wrong.”

The group helpfully provides video of the offending segment.

Finally, there’s this boilerplate about the Super PAC.

(John Gilmore’s website provides exactly zero additional information.)

The American Values 2024 Twitter feed  (70 tweets, 301 followers) isn’t much help either.

But elsewhere on Twitter, the Super PAC has gotten a modicum of attention.

About a week ago, Slate’s Jim Newell took a look at those polling numbers.

Kennedy officially launched his Democratic primary bid on April 19, after a month or two of making noise about it. In an April 9 Morning Consult poll, 10 percent of those surveyed said they would support Kennedy for the Democratic presidential nomination. The day of Kennedy’s launch, a USA Today/Suffolk poll had Kennedy at 14 percent. The Fox News poll released April 26, referenced by CNN, showed Kennedy at 19 percent. Kennedy was at 21 percent in an April 27 Emerson College poll . . .

It’s not just Kennedy who has a little bit of traction, though. Marianne Williamson, in her second consecutive Democratic primary, is registering in polls as well. In the Fox News survey, Williamson was polling at 9 percent. She was at 8 percent in the Emerson poll.

The main reason these two eccentrics have a surprising primary polling foothold against an incumbent president, then, is because they are the only two warm bodies giving it a go against a president who a supermajority of Americans believe should not run for president again.

One final note: The Bulwark’s Jonathan V. Last asks, Why Is This Man Running as a Democrat?

If you haven’t read Mona [Charen’s] fantastic piece about RFK Jr., go do that right now.

For me, the most interesting question is: Why is this guy running as a Democrat?

As Mona demonstrates, RFK Jr.’s biggest fans seem to come from conservative world. He’s a Fox News / InfoWars kind of candidate . . .

And RFK Jr. is much closer to Alex Jones and Trump and even DeSantis than he is to Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic figure . . .

[It] seems possible that if DeSantis hollows out, the opening isn’t for Nikki Haley, or Tim Scott, or Brian Kemp—it’s for someone like RFK Jr., or Elon Musk, or Alex Jones to take from Trump by making him look like part of the establishment.

The Doc’s diagnosis? Forget Covid boosters – get yourself a Dramamine drip and settle in for the long run.

P.S. Still no idea who’s bankrolling American Values 2024, but it’s bound to come out sooner rather than later.

What’s Up with the NYC Girls Project?

by Campaign Outsider

DrAdsforProfileWell the Doc opened the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

Did you see this story in the New York Times yesterday?

City Unveils a Campaign to Improve Girls’ Self-Esteem

The fashion industry and Madison Avenue are not anathema to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg in the same way that soda companies and big tobacco are. But they are, in a sense, the impetus for City Hall’s latest public health campaign.GIRLS-02-articleInline

Mr. Bloomberg is taking on the popular, unattainable notions of beauty promoted by professional image-makers with a campaign that tells girls that they are beautiful the way they are.

Mainly through bus and subway ads, the campaign aims to reach girls from about 7 to 12 years old, who are at risk of negative body images that can lead to eating disorders, drinking, acting out sexually, suicide and bullying. But unlike Mr. Bloomberg’s ads to combat teenage pregnancy, smoking and soda-drinking, which are often ugly, revolting or sad, these ads are uniformly upbeat and positive.

Whaddaya think, Doc – good idea?

– Bloom(berg) Off the Rose

Dear Bloom(berg),

First off, the Doc has never lacked for self-esteem, so he’s the ideal person to address this issue.

The $330,000 NYC Girls Project describes itself as “[a] public education campaign geared toward girls ages 7-12 appearing on buses, subways, and phone kiosks and featuring a diverse group of girls performing activities like reading, playing sports, and drawing with the words: “I’m a girl. I’m smart, a leader, adventurous, friendly, funny. I’m beautiful the way I am.”

Yes you are. (See PSA here.)

It reminds the Doc of Nike’s classic 1995 damage-control If You Let Me Play spot.

 

There are some NYC Girls Project spoilsports, though.

From Slate:

This initiative gets so many things right. But to pick a nit, what’s with the slogan? As Kat Stoeffel at the Cut notes, “There’s something slightly contradictory about the NYC Girls Project message—‘Don’t worry about how you look. You look beautiful!’ ” Isn’t the point of the program to encourage girls to disassociate their sense of worth from their physical appearance? Why couldn’t the slogan simply be, “I’m Awesome the Way I Am?”

From Time:

The NYC Girl’s Project may have employed all the right tactics, but the long-term effectiveness of self-esteem programs is still in question. In a study published in 2013 on an Internet-based promotion of positive body image, young girls in the study reported a decrease in body dissatisfaction: they compared their bodies less to others and were more satisfied with their own appearance than girls who hadn’t seen the promotion. However, the positive effects had dissipated during a followup interview three months later.

Even so, it’s worth trying, yeah?

Yo.