Not exact matches
I think the evil one gets
enough publicity and assistance
as it is.
But much of the time, if it's done early
enough, ducks get put in a row and things line up
as expected, especially lately with so much
publicity around the Oscars now.
We understand the needs of information marketers, and our campaigns are flexible
enough to meet your
publicity goals
as your offerings evolve.
Sure, at first you will have very few readers, it's a frightful amount of work, and will cause you to have to learn all sorts of skills, like
enough of art to evaluate a cover, and
enough of
publicity to get word out.But
as you work, so will your audience grow.
Choice 1: How much money do we want to spend today on reducing carbon dioxide emission without having a reasonable idea of: a) how much climate will change under business
as usual, b) what the impacts of those changes will be, c) the cost of those impacts, d) how much it will cost to significantly change the future, e) whether that cost will exceed the benefits of reducing climate change, f) whether we can trust the scientists charged with developing answers to these questions, who have abandoned the ethic of telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but, with all the doubts, caveats, ifs, ands and buts; and who instead seek lots of
publicity by telling scary stories, making simplified dramatic statements and making little mention of their doubts, g) whether other countries will negate our efforts, h) the meaning of the word hubris, when we think we are wise
enough to predict what society will need a half - century or more in the future?
As if it doesn't get
enough bad
publicity already.
Add that the subject will likely have public relevance and sympathies and, probably, money
enough for a crack team of lawyers, and you conclude that any prosecutor who goes that way without an airtight case will appear to the public to be wasting public resources to prosecute a minor crime (that many people won't ever consider
as a crime) in order to get
publicity.