Hartford Courant Nominated For Chutzpah Award For Claiming To Protect Public By Demanding It Keeps Getting $$$ For Running Legal Ads

I am nominating my old employer – The Hartford Courant – for the Chutzpah Award in advertising for 2010 for its full-page ad today asking readers to contact their state legislators.

Why? Well it seems like some legislators think that the millions of dollars spent on newspaper advertising for legal notices could be done CHEAPER on the Internet.

“THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T POLICE ITSELF.” The ad from the Connecticut Daily Newspaper Association states in World War III sized type.

“DON’T LET CONNECTICUT OFFICIALS REMOVE YOUR RIGHT TO KNOW FROM THE NEWSPAPER” is the subhead in red ink, smaller sized, maybe appropriate if Connecticut voters wanted to drop out of the U.S.

“We’re concerned,” the ad continues. “And you should be too.”

Well I know why The Courant, the alleged newspaper of record, is concerned. It gets mucho bucks from these ads. How much? Don’t know, and the ad doesn’t say. My guess is that it runs in the millions, or at least six digits a year. Why don’t you ask The Courant. I would, but my lawyer – Joseph Garrison of New Haven – would smack me on the side of the head if I did since I am suing my former employer for wrongful termination.

Now what I don’t know is why YOU should be concerned.

This is what The Courant ad says are the reasons:

The ads are located in “easy-to-find” sections. (I guess Google would not be of help on the Internet.)

“They are fully accessible to everyone – unlike the internet, which is not…”  (Really, I didn’t realize that everyone read The Courant.)

“Less than 10 percent” of the public reads governmental websites. (And what percentage of Courant readers read the notices???)

“Furthermore, a public notice printed in the newspaper produces a permanent record.” (I bet you all keep The Courant for dozens of years.)

“The internet (sic) does not”  (I get The Courant doesn’t use this argument in selling spots on its Internet site.)

“Nor does it (Internet) assure timeliness”  (That is REAL news folks, it’s man bites dog kind of news that newspapers are more timely than the Internet.)

And here is one part I just love:

“Newspapers are…fully transparent and represent a secure third party who has nothing to gain (honest to God, that is what it says) from any notice” (We will talk about transparency in a little while, but I love the claim that newspapers have nothing to gain.)

“Connecticut’s recent ethical lapses shed a glaring light on the full meaning of this problem” (I think we are now talking about ethical lapses at The Courant, like discouraging columnists from writing negatively about key advertisers or stealing stories from rival newspapers and putting Courant staff bylines on them.)

Now when I was reading the next part, I have to tell you, I almost fell off the throne where I read The Courant:

“Newspapers are your watchdogs. Don’t let that role be changed now.”  (Hmmm, didn’t The Courant have an investigative consumer watchdog? Let’s see, what happened to him?)