Episode Summary
Executive Summary: This episode traces how Herb Schmertz transformed oil-industry PR at Mobil by pioneering issue advertising, advertorials, and aggressive media strategy to shape opinion leaders and policy debates. The host argues these tactics normalized fossil-fuel messaging in prestigious media, helped establish corporate First Amendment arguments, and laid groundwork for modern climate denial and delay.
Main Topics: Herb Schmertz and the rise of modern oil PR: The episode profiles Mobil PR chief Herb Schmertz as a central architect of corporate spin who changed how oil companies communicated with the public and policymakers. Issue advertising and the advertorial: Schmertz shifted oil ads away from selling gas to selling ideas, using op-ed style advertorials and issue ads to project credibility and influence discourse. Influencing opinion leaders through elite media: The discussion emphasizes that the real target was legislators, editors, and other 'influentials,' especially through the New York Times and other prestige outlets. Media complicity and the evolving ad/news boundary: The episode argues that newspapers and broadcasters became delivery mechanisms for corporate propaganda, often wrapping fossil-fuel messaging in trusted editorial environments. Corporate speech and First Amendment politics: Schmertz is presented as a key advocate for expansive corporate speech rights and against regulation that could limit corporate access to media platforms. Legacy for climate disinformation: The episode connects Schmertz’s techniques to later climate denial and delay by showing how oil companies learned to make their messaging culturally embedded and harder to detect.
Key Arguments: Schmertz fundamentally changed the relationship between corporations and the press by treating media as a tool to reach the public and policymakers directly. Mobil’s advertorials were designed less to persuade the general public than to influence opinion leaders, especially through elite outlets like the New York Times. Issue advertising created the modern oil-industry playbook: companies now present themselves as responsible problem-solvers working on climate rather than fossil-fuel sellers. The success of these campaigns helped soften mainstream media viewpoints on energy policy, conservation, deregulation, and drilling. Fossil-fuel propaganda is effective because it is embedded in trusted media environments, making it hard to distinguish advertising from journalism. The media shares responsibility because propaganda depends on a delivery mechanism, and news organizations continue to profit from oil-company branded content.
Data Points: Mobil advertorial share in NYT op-ed pages: About 1 in 4 (25%) - Jeffrey Supran notes that roughly a quarter of all New York Times op-ed advertorials were commissioned by Mobil or ExxonMobil. Herb Schmertz tenure at Mobil: 1969 to 1988 - He ran public affairs for Mobil across nearly two decades. Date of New York Times opening op-ed pages to ads: 1970 - Schmertz developed the advertorial when the Times began accepting op-ed advertising. Year of described briefing: 1978 - Schmertz wrote a briefing titled 'Corporations and the First Amendment' for the American Management Association. PBS underwriting example: A small fortune - The transcript says Mobil underwrote PBS programming while also running a critical advertorial about a PBS film. Longshoremen strike example: 60,000 longshoremen - Schmertz was called in to help during the 1964 longshoremen strike.
Pivotal Quotes: "To do the job properly, you have to really go around the press or beyond the press or against the press to get a story out so that the public focuses on it, not the press." — Herb Schmertz: His philosophy on corporate communications and bypassing traditional journalism. "The messages stimulated discussion among influentials on both sides of the issue." — Herb Schmertz: His own description of how Mobil’s advertorials were intended to work. "Stories that influence the influential." — New York Times Brand Studio tagline: The host highlights this as a modern echo of Schmertz’s strategy.
Implications: The episode suggests modern climate misinformation is partly a product of sophisticated PR tactics normalized by major media. Listeners are urged to scrutinize corporate content in trusted outlets and recognize how advertising shapes policy debate.