An email to Forum readers and participants included:

For as little as $500 let us introduce you to our *70,000 online monthly readers

By advertising on On Line Opinion you:
• Reach a broad and influential demographic
• Talk to motivated people who share your values
• Support a site which promotes healthy debate on the issues of the day.

Since all points of view are allowed on the Forum [I applaud that] how can the Forum guarantee to an advertiser that the readership shares the advertiser's values? Healthy debate is inconsistent with a particular set of values beside the value that healthy debate is good.

I very often wonder, not why GY allows two threads so a like but why posters do not use existing threads.
This comment fits like fingers in a glove the one about free speech already here.
And, in my view asks a question that is , rather lite on substance.
OLO while giving us a forum is Private Property, it costs cash to build run and continue to keep us all here.
Why should its owners be any different than any advertiser.
We see advertisements for things that may well be fraud, sex aid drugs for one.
Why impose rules on the printed word that have never been imposed on other adds?
I think we need to consider this, evidence exists, in my view, the monster claiming to own the NET or trying to, has left its mark already OLO needs our support ,not lifting the carpets hoping to find wrong that is not there.

Dear Belly,

I think of Graham Young as an ethical person, and I respect his editorial policies along with his moderation of olo submissions. My comment was a criticism of advertising speak which is a pervasive influence in our society. It is so pervasive that even Graham has fallen into it.

it took me a while to sepperate the headline
from the question

but davids main point appears to be disputing?

quote
'Talk to motivated people who share your values'

as we know ANY OPINION
has an equally valid opposing opinion

ok 70,000 might not agree
but the half or quarter that do
thats better odds than just about any other site

see if we allow
and retain opposing opinions
we ENSURE..there will allways be enough others
of enough opposing opinion..to sustain the truth of the claim...

[if advertising is affective..people will come back]

and as long as your opinion is respected
or you can rebut or refute others errant opinions..the site wins

its a clever concept

diverse opinions
means the house wins...most of the time

it takes all sorts
and we got them ...in spades

I think that I agree with one under god.

>>there will allways be enough others of enough opposing opinion..to sustain the truth of the claim<<

The claim that you will be reaching "motivated people who share your values" is surely going to be entirely supportable, given the patently diverse set of opinions expressed here.

If the claim had been "you will be reaching only people who share your values", then it would fail that test.

david I share your dislike of advertising speak but I was goint to post a similar repsonse to Pericles' post above.

OLO can also claim to have an influential demographic - many of the posters are social commentators, have a high public profile and there are even a few 'celebrity' authors. OLO also makes the news on occasion including the latest ANZ and IBM withdrawal of advertising.

Dear Pericles and OUG,

You have a point, and I agree that the discussions include people with various values. However, I think that some could read it with the 'only' implied. If the olo participants & audience include people with various values why mention values at all? Alternatively the statement could be: "In our audience you will find people with your values."

I think the wording implies that all 70,000 share the values.

We've seen from our own experiences that people in different walks oflife may interpret the same phenomenon - whether it's a riot, a PM's policies, a religious doctrine, - in very different ways. In other words, people tend to see the events from a viewpoint of subjectivity - an interpreatation based on personal values and experiences. This fact raises a very important issue. Is it possible to understand things from a viewpoint of objectivity - an interpretation that eliminates the influence of personal values and experiences?

I guess the first step is to recognize that subjectivity and objectivity are not two neat and separate categories; they are really matters of degree. By exercising scrupulous caution people can attempt to be as objective as possible. This caution involves a deliberate effort to be conscious of one's own biases so that they can be kept out of the process. For editors involved in the media for example, the ethical code requires them to be intellectually honest - that they attempt to be aware of their own values and not allow these values to distort their work; that they relentlessly hunt down the relevant facts and not ignore those that are inconvenient for their pet theories and beliefs; that they not suppress opposing viewpoints or manipulate facts to prove a point. When views are published others will assess the sitations and make decisions accordingly. Total objectivity is probably impossible to achieve, but a self-conscious effort to be as objective as possible will produce vastly less biased results all round than not making this attempt. The bottom line for many corporations is that they compete not through the quality or price of their products but rather through their advertising. They devote huge resources to this end and their aim is the pursuit of profits. Anything that appears even remotely controversial, I suspect will be avoided - and controversial topics on internet forums -
will unfortunately mean the loss of corporations sponsorship that prefer to play it safe.

David f with respect mate.
That is very silly stuff.
You can not possibly think that surely?

Lexi, "Anything that appears even remotely controversial, I suspect will be avoided - and controversial topics on internet forums -
will unfortunately mean the loss of corporations sponsorship that prefer to play it safe."

Or are the companies reacting to the threat of embarrassment through being named as one of the parties 'involved' in a controversy? Advertisers and activists sense that the herd might react to a headline, but they rarely read the story to establish the facts.

However to model behaviour as a good corporate citizen a company might instead call the activist's bluff and defend editorial independence and free speech. Anyhow, companies that are seen as easy beats will attract activists from all interests like moths to a flame.

Cornflower:

I can't argue with your valid reasoning.

as lexi pointed out
advertisers look for..*certain_values
they serve specific demographics..have their target marketing

but i lost the point i was going to make
[i note no smoke's booze suppliers in the adverts...

but it seems every word in the topic has an advert
to convert or subvert the opinions expressed within the host topic]

you said quote

'why mention values at all? '

values is a key word
remeber the email ..was an advert too

''Alternatively the statement could be:
"In our audience you will find people with your values."''

but that would have been incorrect
there can be no will..[as in must]

there is only opinion here...and we all got our own
but behind the one common fact ..we share..
[ie an adgenda that needs others to hear our opinions]

we otherwise are a diverse bunch..

[there could be some recipiants of the email
who might take a 'will find' ..as a broken promise..and sue
if they dont find..]

there can be no concensus
we are all different..

its not like a porn site
where everone is into that specific porn [for egsample]

we are about intelect and voicing our opinion..
doer's..thinkers [as well as consumers and potential customers]

some of us..me find many adverts are subversive
and consuming my restricted download limits
..but even i have clicked on a few adverts

ok not as many as belly or yabby or the minester
but its all a numbers game

and hit or miss
the odds are ..here you will get a return/response even to an advert

even if your id gets suspended for voicing an opinion
[or rather not an opinion..but more how you chose to say it]

even so
the reason for this topic..and the email
was anz and ibm seeking to make their points
and im so over rebutting others opinions points

i just want to post and go
my opinions about the adverts
heck i dont know

opinions can be right or wrong
so lets keep the adverts where they belong
on the sidelines ..paying for the whole thing..oh what joy they do bring..

Dear Belly,

I speak not with forked or silly tongue. I want to see honesty in speech, writing and advertising. I would like to see gradations of value in speech rather than the proliferation of 'ultimate', 'superstar' and 'fantastic'. Superlatives should be limited to those rare occurences, objects or people who are unquestionably superlative. It would be good to limit the use of adjectives in general.

In the initial blurb that I cited the following appeared:

"Talk to motivated people who share your values"

When the advertisers found some values expressed that their target group did not share they were justified in withdrawing their ads.

It would have been honest to say that olo provides a forum for a variety of views rather than promising 'shared values'.

Gday David, you need to excuse me here my Grammar is awful truly I do not judge on how a writing is put together but its intent.
I feel I know you, do not but you talk as many I know do.
Total truth in advertising never existed ever.
I would have said nothing much different, and do not see ANY DECEPTION HERE.
If right now, you and I had the task here of attracting adds, to this forum to among other things keep it alive.
What would you write in one paragraph?
This is my not thought out effort.
OLO has[number of visitors]from diverse back grounds your money may well reach those who can not be reached in other media out lets.
List current users.
I however think you are looking for mullet in a long dry dam.

Dear Belly,

One never really knows another person, and all we get from email messages are shadows of shadows. I agree that total truth in advertising never has existed, but we can still try to tell the truth as best we can.

I appreciate your metaphors.