Scads of people on the Net–not all but many–are learning to love blogs and distrust big newspapers.
Minneapolis, where a sister-in-law of the mayor tried to do spin control on bloggers while on the payroll of the Star-Tribune, just might be a classic case. The relationship may or may not have counted. But the newspaper’s coverage of the MPL is still rather bizarre. Along the way, Minneapolis is also a splendid illustration of bad library marketing.
I’ll get to the Star-Tribune and a belated news story in a moment. Why did the Strib take weeks to print a story about a controversy raging in the blogosphere about a Mao Tse-tung poster that insulted librarians and Chinese people? But first the most important library angle–the laying off of staffers and shortening of library hours.
Library-goers in Minneapolis must be outraged by the cutbacks, with at least one branch apparently open just three days a week. In fact that’s among the issues in the mayoral campaign. You’d think that library supporters would want to put their best face forward. But no. The visage above–yes, an image of the butcher Mao Tse-tung–is among the faces that the boosters have offered instead. Knowingly or not, the Andrews/Birt ad agency created a racist ad for a $125 million downtown library under construction.
One of the agency’s library-related graphics notes that Mao was a librarian. Er, a harmless demonstration of freedom of speech and all that? Never mind that this control freak killed millions in between putting up his big buildings. Or that the explanatory caption is small compared to Mao’s picture.
A/B’s Mao poster is supposed to be a gimmick to get us to read the little caption in the ad, suporting freedom of speech and the new library campaign. Suppose, however, Hitler had been a librarian. Wouldn’t a big photo of Herr Fuhrer have screamed the same visual message? But apparently it doesn’t matter what you do–just so you’re famous. It’s time for Friends of the Minneapolis Library not just to put the Mao ad on hold but substitute something much more fun. As I wrote in LISNews: “The good news is that the A/B effort shows real flair and could do much better simply by substituting Bunny Wilson, played by Katharine Hepburn in Desk Set. Who would you rather get homework or job-hunting help from–Kate or Mao Tse-tung?”
Simply put, Minnesota doesn’t need a phony freedom of speech campaign when schools and libraries face real threats such as anti-Darwin campaigns. And, hey, Andrews/Birt, would you care to devote the same energy to a campaign for more state and local funds for libraries to restore hours?
Meanwhile none other than a sister-in-law of the mayor, Deborah Rybak, a media reporter for the Strib, has done some spin control–by phoning bloggers and asking if it was “responsible” for them to write about the controversy without seeing the full ad. She was far more interested in the “responsibility” angle than anything else when she talked to me. But that’s a screaming nonissue, given that (1) the ad wasn’t online originally and (2) it was pretty obvious that the ad agency was sensationalistic and harmful to the library’s image, if you took time to consider the full implications. A small paper called SkyWay News accurately summed up the ad campaign. Just why was Deborah Rybak, then, making such a big deal of this? Either she is a dupe for Andrews/Birt or she is doing spin for other reasons. I think it’s more of the latter. Not sure about the family connection. It could go either for or against the mayor. Considering the Star-Trib’s $500,000 contributions to the new library, however, not mentioned in her story, one wonders how detached the paper is as a whole. The Mao story took several weeks for the Star-Trib to do even after SkyWays News published it.
But what about the main show, the library cuts? It would be interesting to search the Star-Tribune’s morgue in a truly comprehensive way to see how diligent the paper has or hasn’t been in covering the issue of cutbacks in library hours. A quick search suggested not very. See bottom of this post for a little mention of the controversy that I did see from the Star-Trib. I also found an opinion piece from the League of Women Voters, noting the cuts. Not the most diligent coverage on the news side unless I’m missing someting. Oh, well. At least the Star-Trib ran an AP piece covering the issue in another city. An upbeat story on the Franklin Community Library, a neighborhood branch “restored to the architectural splendor of its past,” contains not a mention of the hours issue. The place isn’t even open on weekends and, except on Monday, shuts down on weekdays as early as 6. Just the ticket for kids doing homework, eh? (Sarcasm alert.)
Detail: A Star-Trib poll as of around 2:30 today says that only 19 percent of 935 readers think that the ads are “offensive” and that just 11 percent believe that they’re “sensationalistic.” Eight percent view them as “unsettling but effective.” 61 percent describe the ads as “creative and smart.” As the Star-Trib notes, however, “A Web-savvy person could easily figure out a way to vote as often as he or she likes and skew the results. Unfortunately, there’s no easy way to prevent such disreputable behavior.” If the poll is accurate, it’s more of a reflection on the participants than anything else. Maybe they should spend more time studying history in the library. Will they go just because Mao was a librarian in his pre-butcher days?
The library hour controversy as mentioned in the Star-Trib: Rybak rival Peter McLaughlin “pledged to sue the state for full funding of the city’s schools. He criticized the mayor for cuts to the Police and Fire departments and in library hours. Rybak said he has led the city at a time when it faced dramatic cuts in state aid. While McLaughlin talks about beefing up public safety, he has yet to say how he would pay for it, Rybak said.”
Not everyone a culprit at the Strib: In his blog, Strib columnist James Lileks commented negatively on the Mao campaign. “Hmm. I’m curious: How many people do you have to kill, and how many books do you have to destroy, before you’re no longer a benign historical image to be used in a ‘clever’ ad campaign?”
(Revised in the afternoon to pick up various nuances on Ryback and other details.)
Just because you dont like the Mao ads doesn’t mean you’re right. That is only your opinion. Your posting on this issue is filled with opinions stated as facts. What makes the ad racist, as you claim? And why should only Chinese people and Librians be insulted? If it is as vile as you claim then shouldn’t all people be offended? Maybe you are saying that people should only care about their own race. What bothers me is that the ad offers no endorsement of Mao, provides no support for his misdeeds, and in fact merely contrasts one of his failings with a success of MPL. Granted, the ad relies upon a certain amount of controversy and image juxtaposition, but please, no one will be wondering aloud “golly are they murdering gobs of peasants at the Library?” I happen to be of the opinion that it is not offensive and will in fact be intriguing enough to rope in a few regular folk to looking further into the issue and the ads, and perhaps heeding the call for supporting the Library in one way or another. You can use the words butcher, racist and Hitler all you want and that doesnt mean that the ad is, or supports any of those things in the least bit. I appreciate your opinion, but not the flawed logic and use of fear buzz words that dont apply in your posting. Thank you for having a comment box.
Thanks for your note. Hey, maybe we’ll agree on another issue. OK–my response.
I don’t see how much more clear I could be in explaining why I called the ad racist. The library associated itself with the image of Mao–something far, far more powerful than the caption. Jews would not take too kindly to Coors doing a beer commercial with an image of Hitler as a happy beer drinker. Same concept, even if that ad carried a caption.
You write:
You can use the words butcher, racist and Hitler all you want and that doesnt mean that the ad is, or supports any of those things in the least bit.
As I’ve noted, the racism isn’t necessarily deliberate. But that’s the effect. Think out the parallel. It’s a matter of context. The so-called punchline doesn’t work since many if not most people might not even bother to read it.
One more point–the general First Amendment issue. I do believe that Maoists, white supremists, anyone, should be able to meet at the library as long as they are not a threat to other patrons. What’s more, as I’ve noted before, I would be angry if the Little Red Book and Mein Kampf were not included in the MPL’s collection.
But that’s different from the ads where the images count so much. Far better for the library to have used Bunny Wilson.
Ryan, I’m just curious. Are you the same Ryan Curry who works for the MPL? Or related to the guy who does? An MPL online document, board meeting minutes dated Feb. 5, 2003, mentions a new administrative analyst named Ryan Curry. “Ryan will be attending Library Board meetings and will be responsible for taking notes and writing minutes.”
Meanwhile I see an MPL board minutes page, dated Aug. 6, 2003, saying that a Ryan T. Curry–that’s your exact name in your email address–donated $200 to the personnel budget fund.
If you are the same Ryan Curry in one or more of these cases, did you speak up on your own within the TeleBlog, or did the library staff or anyone else encourage you to do a little spin control? And what about the $200? I hope it was from the heart and that you were not under any pressure. Let us know. I commend you if it was from the heart.
By the way, I also see a Ryan Curry wrote a pro-MPL note to a small Minneapolis paper and apparently didn’t say he worked for the library. Same guy? And any any senior people encourage you to write it and avoid your affiliation being disclosed? Remember, you work directly for the policymakers.
Let say you are the same Ryan Curry in all cases. Then you’re still welcome to hang around the TeleBlog–maybe we’ll agree on the next library issue. I’d just like to get your possible affiliations known for the record, so people can consider it in evaluating your opinions.
Also, do you have any connections with Mayor Rybak or other political connections pertaining directly or indirectly to the MPL?
Similarly do you know if any library staffers or other MPL-linked people tried to influence the online Minneapolis Star-Tribune poll? Did you particpate in the poll? If so, how many times did you vote? Just once, I’d hope!
Whatever the case, I wish MPL the best of luck with both the building campaign and the issue of library hours. I just think things could be handled a lot differently.
Note: I’m fully aware that state budgetary issues are involved in the hours controversy–which I’ve noted.
Additional thought: I’d love to see the zeal of the MPL defenders applied to national causes such as the fight against the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which over the years will transfer billions to big corporations and wealth heirs–at the expense of schools, libraries and society at large. Any takers in Minneapolis? Even more importantly, how about the same enthusiasm applied toward better state and local funding, so full hours can come back?
Glad to see your comments.
Regarding the Tribune story, I’m angry to be presumed as not having seen the entire ad. (my open letter – which the Star Tribune had also received – was partially quoted in the story). I initially saw the Skyway News article, then viewed the entire ad at the Friends of the Mpls Libraries website, upon the invite of the director of the organization.
Below is the letter I wrote in response to the “full viewing” .
Campaign creator Chris Birt complains in the article:
“They weren’t seeing the punchline,” Birt said in an interview. “I just wanted to yell, ‘Would you please just read my ads? Just read ’em!’ ”
Well, yes, I DID. And this is what I thought and still think. And I’m yelling, too.
Mr. Hamilton,
I appreciate the opportunity to view your ads in their full context. Thank you for your quick reply.
I nonetheless remain firm in my opinion that the use of Mao and Hoover are lamentable, for the reasons stated in my previous letter.
Furthermore, regarding the Mao and Hoover ads, as their images are extremely large and equal to that of the library, it thus follows that the two can be taken as equal. The disclaimers are a literal footnote at the bottom. Hence, this dramatic disproportion doesn’t explain the relationship of images – and the intended contrast – with sufficient clarity.
This is simple visual literacy, describing what is seen.
I know that the viewers are ultimately responsible for reading the ad fully, but my practical experience as a designer and observer is that people rarely read the small text of ads too closely. The failure of this campaign is thus a design issue as well as a content issue. If one wants to play with the fire of loaded image, one may best take care not to get burned.
On the other hand, if the campaign just wants attention, it is getting it. I firmly believe popular attention could be achieved in a more responsible and affirming manner, one befitting an honorable institution. As I’ve said, this is upsetting.
If you really want to contrast Mao with the Minneapolis Public Libraries, for example, why not show his Red Guard burning books and executing scholars? Choosing to present him with a propoganda portrait puts him in a positive light.
You may feel I’m nitpicking, but my point is: the ads overwhelmingly rely on the images and the associations one has with them. These ads still smack me as unfortunate and ignorant. I’ll say it again, exploiting a popular image of a murderer is not hip or interesting. If Charles Manson were a librarian, would he also be used in the campaign to underscore the differences of abuse and liberty?
I love the libraries, as I’m sure you do, and I also hope to encourage wider support for them, but this all makes me sad and angry. You are offending and alienating the community you intend to serve. I wish you would end this campaign promptly.
Sincerely,
Keith Saunders
Great note, Keith. You picked up on the importance of the visual. The Mao and Hoover images overpower the captions. A/B, of all folks, should understand that. Let’s hope that the Friends group will listen to you. Bunny Wilson, anyone? – David Rothman
Funny how a blog originating in VA seems to have a better grasp on the MPL scene than our own paper of record the Star Trib. Thank you Teleread for offering this forum. As you note Mr. Roth people are “learning to love blogs and distrust big newspapers,” for this very reason. Instant communication among respecting – and respectful – parties, versus praying one gets a Letter to the Editor read and then okay’d as sufficiently bland to feed the masses. Since I doubt the following will pass such a screening I appreciate having the opportunity to present my humble opinion here, where in a perfect world of linking and cross-pollination it may yet exceed the shrinking audience of the Star Tribune:
Lileks is right, with or without the text the Mao ad is offensive [“Do new library ads just borrow trouble?” by Deborah Caulfield Rybak, Star Tribune May 23, 2005]. As a matter of fact, far from providing some essential “contrast” the too-clever-by-half text only makes the offense that much worse; to coyly “asterisk” that demonic mug with some flippant ad copy that at best is easily misconstrued, and at worst could actually be said to humanize the “Great Helmsman” on certain grounds, is pure shockvertising, unfit for a beloved public institution. Because here’s the point: when you invoke Mao’s name in the hopes of creating buzz, when you use Mao’s image, especially that one, that inspired so many millions to HEIGHTS OF WORSHIP THAT PULLED THEM INEXORABLY TO THEIR EARLY GRAVES, you summon the ghosts of that evil along with it. “Least diverse collection of books,” in either its literal or suggestive intent does not begin to do justice. Part of what libraries do is help citizens parse such gibberish, not foist it upon them.
Thank you, Gil, for your kind comments. I hope you and the others in Minneapolis will keep posting. Would that I had more time for this story!
But don’t let that stop you and others from writing more messages. I’m delighted to let the TeleBlog act as a forum as long as people take care to be fair to the MPL, A/B and the Strib. Your message certainly falls within bounds.
Spread the word about the Web address above if you and others think this part of the blog ought to be a central meeting place.
If response is great enough, maybe someone can go on to create a Yahoo Group to take over as a forum. Another possibilty might be an MPL/Strib/Minneapolis section within LISNews.
Meanwhile perhaps the Stib will wise up offer more balanced coverage–and an accessible letters-to-the-editor page! I remain baffled why newspapers don’t do Web-based extensions of the l-to-the-e page. The paper LTTEP could point to the spillover on the Net.
– David Rothman (who’d still like to know why the Strib took weeks to cover the controversy).
Some Like It Raw
Here’s how the Star Tribune –in their online edition anyway–saw fit to revise my Letter to the Editor (sent to them with the exact wording as paragraph two of the Gil W. post above ) about the MPL ad campaign:
“James Lileks is right. A May 23 article takes note of the Star Tribune columnist’s puzzlement over the Minneapolis Public Library’s yet-to-be-launched ad campaign — a puzzlement shared by many because of the campaign’s use of an ad featuring the image of Chinese dictator Mao Zedong (once a librarian) alongside a likeness of the new library. The article quotes Lileks’ blog, the Bleat, in which he asks “how many people do you have to kill, and how many books do you have to destroy, before you’re no longer a benign historical image to be used in a ‘clever’ ad campaign?” Good question. When you invoke Mao’s name and image in hopes of creating a public “buzz,” you summon the ghosts of Mao’s evil deeds as well. The ad makes use of a despot who sent millions of people to their graves, crediting him for creating the world’s “least diverse collection of books.” Too clever by half, the ad glorifies a mass murderer and minimizes a horrific wrong.”
“Gil Wolman, Minneapolis”
Puzzlement? There’s no puzzlement. Lilek’s rejoinder in his blog to the MPL ad campaign once he’d seen the text is a SCORCHING INDICTMENT. See for yourself at: http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/05/0505/051305.html.
Neither is there puzzlement among the 18% polled by the paper as “offended” by the ad. Outrage yes, “seeing red” yes, shame for the good name of MPL yes. And a bit of the boiling blood that leaked into the original Letter, not the bland pap that emerged in the Tribune version. They managed to rehash the debate nicely, with absolutely none of the passion. With both posts at approx 170 words each why would the Tribune bother to change anything? Obviously not for economy, how about to strip the power, tone down the ardor, and muddy the coherence of honest expression?
As an exercise in editorial disparagement read the two side-by-side, the one from a big-city newspaper, the other from an unfiltered forum of free thinking, and ask if this—like the Mao ad itself—is not the numbing down of America?