Letter from General Mills regarding Sinclair boycott

The following letter was received from General Mills in response to a request to end advertising on Sinclair Broadcasting stations.

Thank you for contacting General Mills.

Many consumers have written to share their views on
this issue. Some have urged General Mills to use
its influence as an advertiser to ensure that the
media reports the news in an unbiased manner. Some
have urged General Mills to continue advertising, and
have threatened to withdraw support for our products
if we alter our advertising plans. Passions run deep
on both sides, particularly this close to an election.


Whenever possible, General Mills does strive to
preview the programs on which our advertising appears.
We do so to assure that we do not advertise on
programs inconsistent with the family-oriented nature
of our products. This works well with entertainment
programs produced and available for advance screening,
but pre-screening of news broadcasts is usually not
possible.

Our view in this area is clear. We believe one of
the fundamental elements of our society is the freedom
of the press. Companies such as ours, in our view,
should not attempt to influence, control or pre-empt
the content of news through the leverage of
advertising sponsorship. To do so would undermine that
fundamental freedom.

From time to time, any one of us as viewers may
consider a particular news story to be inaccurate or
imbalanced. News organizations do err. Judgment is
not always well applied. One major news organization
recently acknowledged that errors were made in stories
relating to the current presidential election. When
such errors occur, certainly a price is paid in terms
of reputation. But errors and questionable judgment
are an acceptable price to pay, in our view, to assure
the presence of a free and independent media in our
society.

As viewers, each of us is free to make a choice. We
can choose to patronize or not patronize programs with
our viewership. We can choose to patronize or not
patronize particular television stations, or even
entire networks.

Similarly, advertisers may choose not to sponsor
certain broadcasts, a particular network or specific
publications because of their journalistic standards
and judgment. But advertisers should not attempt to
control or pre-empt news programming prior to
broadcast or publication. That, in our view, would be
inappropriate.

In this instance, as in the example cited earlier,
passionate voices are calling on advertisers to insert
themselves into the election by threatening to boycott
those who remove or who do not remove their
advertising.

We choose to stand with freedom of the press.

We welcome the views that you and others have shared
with us. You may rest assured that we will remind the
networks we sponsor that the integrity of their
reporting reflects on the companies that advertise
during their broadcasts.

Hopefully, you will understand our views and the
importance we place on a free press.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact us and
share your views.

Sincerely,



General Mills

I guess we could make the point that General Mills is confusing freedom of the press with abuse of the public airways. That would be our opinion. I'm certain that the Kool-Aide drinking Bush supporters would consider any news, regardless of accuracy, that was critical of Bush administration policy as a similar abuse. While my initial reaction to the letter was one of outrage I can see why a corporation might not want to go down the path of media criticism.