Advertising Costs

To the editors:

Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »

In “Power Advertising: Com Ed Gets Shocked, Pulls Plug” (Hot Type, Oct. 13), Michael Miner told a very important story about why Commonwealth Edison is angry with Chicago Times magazine. In its September/October issue, CT published an article by Mary O’Connell in which she criticized Com Ed for having abused its monopoly in northern Illinois by pursuing an investment policy in nuclear generating plants that has resulted in Com Ed’s present overcapacity, hence inefficiency, hence high-end electric rates. Since Com Ed’s forty year old franchise is up for renewal, O’Connell had concluded that it’s time “to pursue the kinds of alternatives–and the lower costs–that people in other cities take for granted. It’s time to challenge the arrogance of power,” meaning Com Ed’s abuse of its monopolistic privilege, of course.

Far more important than this ethical question is another question: I’m not surprised everybody has missed it. What does this conflict between Chicago Times and Com Ed, especially the latter’s withdrawal of its advertising support, a punitive measure against the magazine for having run Mary O’Connell’s article, tell us about the nature of the advertiser-driven media, the scope of free expression within them, and, lastly, who ultimately controls them?

David Peterson