Episode Summary
Executive Summary: The episode examines Herb Schmertz, Mobile’s combative PR strategist, and how his tactics helped reshape corporate communications, journalism norms, and climate denial. By attacking media, exploiting fairness concerns, and using sponsored cultural programming, Schmertz advanced corporate speech rights and helped normalize false balance and large-scale fossil-fuel messaging that still shapes media today.
Main Topics: Herb Schmertz as a pioneering spin doctor: Schmertz emerges as the central figure who replaced old-school, deferential PR with aggressive confrontation, especially toward journalists covering Mobile and the oil industry. False equivalence in journalism: The episode argues Schmertz helped normalize the idea that all sides deserve equal weight, even when one side lacks evidence, influencing climate coverage for decades. Media pressure tactics and retaliation: Schmertz used accusations of bias, advertising pullbacks, and access restrictions to punish outlets that criticized Mobile, forcing many to overcorrect in the company’s favor. Corporate sponsorship of culture and PBS: Mobile’s underwriting of PBS, especially Masterpiece Theatre, is presented as a strategic branding effort aimed at culturally influential audiences rather than philanthropy. Regulatory workarounds and corporate speech: When direct advertising routes were blocked, Schmertz built alternative channels and helped push legal and policy changes that expanded corporate speech in the public sphere. Long-term impact on climate denial: The episode connects Schmertz’s legacy to today’s fossil-fuel advertising, media saturation, and the weakened regulation of corporate messaging across broadcast and digital platforms.
Key Arguments: Schmertz transformed PR by making confrontation with journalists an effective corporate tactic, especially during a time of public hostility toward oil companies. His strategy of demanding “balance” helped institutionalize false equivalence, where unsupported claims are treated as equal to expert evidence. Media outlets often bent to his pressure because they were unaccustomed to aggressive corporate pushback and feared appearing biased. Mobile’s PBS underwriting was not merely philanthropy; it was targeted affinity marketing aimed at high-value cultural influencers. The fairness doctrine limited some forms of corporate messaging, so Schmertz used workarounds like the Mobile Showcase Network and legal challenges to expand corporate speech. The 1978 Bellotti decision is framed as a major turning point that amplified corporate power in public discourse, laying groundwork for modern fossil-fuel persuasion campaigns.
Data Points: Year Scott Macklam case began: 1986 - Used in the opening promo for a different iHeart podcast, not the main Drilled episode. Time since Scott Macklam case: Almost 40 years later - Opening promo references re-examining an old wrongful-conviction case. Mobile's rank in oil industry: Second largest oil company - Explains why Mobile was a major target for public criticism and a major PR player. American gas survey preference for Mobile: 31% - In 1982 survey, 31% of upscale Americans chose Mobile gas. American gas survey preference for Exxon: 16% - Second place in the same 1982 survey. Mobile spending on PBS programming: $3 million a year - By the 1980s, Mobile was heavily funding PBS content through Schmertz’s strategy. Fairness doctrine: FCC policy requiring balance - Cited as a barrier to placing Mobile’s advertorial-style content on broadcast TV. Corporate speech case: First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) - Presented as a landmark that expanded corporate speech rights in public debate.
Pivotal Quotes: "I think that he did not feel comfortable being associated with mobile, and he went to great lengths to avoid being associated beyond what was necessary for the show." — Herb Schmertz: Schmertz reflecting on Masterpiece host Alastair Cook’s discomfort with Mobile sponsorship. "The press, by and large, would like to control the agenda and the terms of reference in all debates, and they'd like to decide what information they're going to deliver and what information they're not going to deliver." — Herb Schmertz: Schmertz criticizing journalists and framing his attacks as a response to media gatekeeping. "It allowed for a systematic distortion of the public space" — Bob Bruhl: Environmental sociologist explaining the broader impact of Bellotti on corporate influence.
Implications: The episode shows how modern climate messaging, corporate PR aggression, and media “balance” norms were built over decades. It warns that today’s fossil-fuel ads and weak platform regulation are direct descendants of these strategies.