Amy Ridenour is now …

Amy Ridenour is now pointing out that Media Matters stands by its original story that they did not, in spite of Staples statements to the contrary, take anything Staples said out of context or misrepresent it. The original press release is here. Their current press release (really, an open letter to Ron Sargent, Staples CEO) says in part:

As you may know, Staples, Inc. officials reviewed, edited, and approved the Media Matters press release of January 4, 2005, in both draft and final form. That release stated that Staples was not renewing advertising on Sinclair local news programming due in part to concerns registered by visitors to the SinclairAction.com website, which was launched December 14, 2004, to protest the conservative slant of Sinclair’s news programming, in particular a nightly conservative commentary called “The Point.”

Visitors to the SinclairAction.com site who contacted Staples, Inc. received email replies from the company informing them that as of January 10, 2005, Staples, Inc. would no longer advertise on Sinclair local news programming.

On January 4, 2005, Staples, Inc. confirmed these facts both to Media Matters and to reporters. For example, on January 5, 2005, Staples, Inc. spokesman Owen Davis was quoted as telling the Chicago Tribune: “In general, we don’t explain decisions regarding our media buys. But we did consider the concerns expressed by our customers with some political partisan programming, specifically ‘The Point.'” And also on January 5, 2005, The Washington Post quoted Mr. Davis as saying that “Staples did consider among other factors the concerns expressed by our customers” regarding the content on Sinclair news programs.

They’re even quoting Owen Davis from the Post article, which I still think is the main point that Staples won’t address. Media Matters is standing by their original statement, that Staples won’t advertise on Sinclair news programs, and that the action was politically motivated, and I agree with them that nothing Staples has said since then has completely contradicted Media Matters. Until we get a clarification/explanation from Davis, not Capelli, it’s all just talk and kiester-covering.

Thus Amy’s analysis still stands, for want of a better explanation (that Staples could provide). They were just too clever for themselves.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!