Friday, January 18, 2008
Biegel vs. Dentsu coverage continues to perplex
Ever since the phrase "Czech brothel" has become, in the ad industry, synonymous with a certain ad agency, I've been perplexed about the, um, variations in coverage of Steve Biegel vs. Dentsu, and today's developments have me scratching my head again. Last week, Adweek covered the presiding judge in the case's decision not to dismiss the case by back-burnering that issue—which seemingly would be a mark in the loss column for Dentsu—and stressing that Biegel had to provide more information to the judge. Now, Biegel met Thursday's deadline for providing additional information, and Adweek hasn't covered it at all, while Ad Age has. Maybe there's some reason I'm not seeing for Adweek not to make it a priority, I dunno. But if a publication is going to build a story aroiund a judge's request that a plaintiff provide more evidence for a case, you'd think it would be obligated to follow up when that plaintiff delivers said evidence.