This is Wrong 53:365

Dear USA Today,
I happened across a picture from an ad posted in the USA Today. It was possibly one of the most disgusting and disturbing pieces of sensationalized shock advertising I have seen. This ad was hateful, blatantly incendiary, and in general grotesque.

1. The imagery of a child in a trash can is revolting. In a society where finding babies in garbage cans is a disturbing reality, the image alone is enough to question the paper’s poor judgement.
2. Anyone who is encouraging students and families to believe this blatant lie about educators is not interested in what is best for kids. Every day I communicate with countless educators both on social media and in person. While we do not always agree on methods, I am hard pressed to find teachers who do not care about kids.
3. Last, the comments are divisive and intended to incite negative actions against educators. It is clearly intended to raise anger and bias toward a specific group of people: teachers. Any ither add that would promote anger and hatred toward a specific group of people would be denied.
The USA Today is a National News Paper that is allowing an advertiser to libel a group of individuals in such a way would be denied. Yes, I said LIBEL. Your paper as aided in Libel with these defamatory statements that are neither based in fact, nor communicated in a responsible way. This is wrong. You owe it to the MILLIONS of hard-working dedicated educators who serve this country’s children faithfully in the face of regular abuse from those who they helped to achieve the positions they now use to defame the profession. Until you post a legitimate EQUALLY LARGE apology to this nations great education professionals, I will never buy your paper again, and I hope America’s education professionals join me in this action.


Brian Costello


4 thoughts on “This is Wrong 53:365

  1. Do remember that this ad was bought and paid for by someone’s money… Guess who? Yes, they could have turned down the ad, but can any print medium turn down any money stream?

    1. Would they have turned down the ad if it showed some other horrifically offensive symbol? ie: burning cross, kids shooting
      Why is it ok to put an image of a child in a trash can?
      Yes the ad was paid for, but at a minimum the image of a child in a trash can is offensive and should have been changed.
      If the Westboro Baptist Church wanted to take out a full page ad focussed on anger and hate would they take their money? I have never seen such an ad so I am guessing no.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s