I have to agree with Jon Stewart. The promotion between MSNBCs”Morning Joe” and Starbucks makes me want to vomit. I know the news biz is suffering, but it’s hard to see them stoop to this. What a disgusting sell out.

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz said that “the rules of engagement in marketing and advertising have changed quite significantly.” Maybe, but it’s a pretty scary step.

The president of MSNBC, Phil Griffin, says “Morning Joe” will continue to cover Starbucks as a news item if warranted. “They understand we have standards,” he told the New York Times.

Of course. Can’t you see it now:

Announcer: Welcome to “Morning Joe” brewed by Starbucks. Here’s Joe Scarborough.

Joe: Big news this morning — Starbucks has decided to close 500 more stores across the country, but don’t worry. They still have really good coffee like this latte I’m drinking. It’s definitely worth $4.50 even though I didn’t have to pay for it. You all should try one. Mika, what do you think?

Mika: I agree Joe. But I prefer the cafe mocha. Because their coffee is so good, I’m sure Starbucks will eventually be able to open those stores up again. What else is going on this morning Joe?

Joe: Did I mention that this Starbucks coffee is really good….

Your 15-year-old (daughter, granddaughter, client) is doing a shoot for Vanity Fair, known for some pretty racy magazine covers. She’s being shot by Annie Leibovitz, the photographer famous for her edgy photos (a nude John Lennon with Yoko Ono, a pregnant Demi Moore, etc.). First of all, why did you agree to let her do it? Second of all, why are you surprised with how it turned out?

Miley Cyrus, the Disney Channel star with the squeaky clean image made the mistake of thinking that the magazine and the photographer were on her side, doing what was best for her, a natural feeling for a naive, young woman. So, as she was quoted in the magazine, “That’s what she (Annie) wanted to do, and you can’t say no to Annie.”

Maybe Miley couldn’t say no, but how about her parents, or her handlers, or her agent, or her PR people, or one of the other dozens of hangers-on that collect around celebrities? Not just say “no” to the photo of Miley suggestively wrapped in bed sheet, but “no” to the idea of posing for Vanity Fair and Annie Leibovitz in the first place.

Of course, as a Disney representative suggested, the magazine and the photographer exploited Miley. And they got exactly what they wanted: An uproar about the cover photo, millions of dollars of free publicity, and increased magazine sales. But the so-called adults in her life allowed it to happen.

How many times can Mattel get caught selling toxic toys before its reputation is ruined beyond repair?

This time, 50 members of Congress have sent a letter criticizing the company for not recalling a blood-pressure cuff in a toy medical kit. In November, Consumer Reports discovered high levels of lead in a plastic part on the toy, but because Federal law only bans lead in paint on toys, Mattel doesn’t have to issue a recall. The Congress members think the company should do it voluntarily.

Mattel might have ignored the problem completely, except that in Illinois the toy is illegal. Their standards for lead are more rigorous that Federal regulations. So Mattel took the toys off the shelves there, but nowhere else. As the letter from Congress said, “If this product is too dangerous for the children of Illinois, it is too dangerous for children in the rest of this country.”

Mattel’s action is especially heinous because of the promises president and CEO David Eckert made after the problems it had with Chinese toys this past summer.

“It is my sincere pledge that we will face this challenge with integrity and reaffirm that we will do the right thing. We will embrace this test of our company and the opportunity to become better.[M]y father encouraged me to earn his trust through my actions rather than just talk about what I was going to do. And it is on this principle that Mattel will move forward. We will earn back your trust with our deeds, not just with our words.”

I guess Eckert’s promises are as empty as the company’s bank of trust.

Why would McDonald’s give the food police such an easy target for so little payoff? How much could the company have gained by advertising on the report cards for kindergarten through 5th grade in Seminole County, Florida? The company also promised a free Happy Meal to students with good grades, behavior, or attendance.

The company’s action was especially egregious because in July, McDonald’s was one of 11 companies who pledged to either ban advertising to children under 12, or limit them to food and snacks that meet certain nutritional guidelines. I hope they’re not going to claim that Ronald McDonald’s picture on the cover of kids’ report cards isn’t advertising.

Of course, the Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood was quick to respond. “This is yet another example that self regulation by food marketers has failed,” said director Susan Linn. “I’m not shocked that McDonald’s tried to do this; I’m shocked the school district went along with it.”

Nope, the School Board wasn’t thinking straight when they allowed the advertising partnership. But I think it’s an issue of not being aware of the climate today which is focused on childhood obesity as a national crisis. The district had a similar partnership with Pizza Hut for 10 years, and when that company opted out this year, the Board didn’t rethink the concept; it just went with McDonald’s.

Apparently, the School Board’s constituency is equally clueless. Only one of the kids’ mothers raised a stink. Granted, it was a big stink that got national attention. But until more parents become concerned and active in their kids’ food choices, we’re doomed to a fat future.

As the saying goes, “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” That’s how I’m now looking at Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty, the ads that show real women in their undies, not the perfect, airbrushed models we’re used to. Unilever, owner of Dove, has positioned itself as a brand that cares about the messages young girls receive about what beauty is all about. Women everywhere (including Oprah) praised the company for helping them feel better about their bodies, flaws and all.

Last week, their ad agency, Ogilvy and Mather, released a video supporting the campaign with the tag line, “Talk to your daughter before the beauty industry does.” Well, it seems that another Unilever brand, Axe deodorant, is already talking to those girls — out of the other side of the company’s mouth.

The Axe ad campaign is the opposite of Dove’s self-esteem focus, instead featuring women coming onto men because they love the smell of their deodorant. Sure it’s all in fun, a spoof of the mating game, as Unilever said in a statement.

I’m no prude. I think the ads are funny, but doesn’t this undermine everything Dove has been trying to accomplish with the Campaign for Beauty? Will girls really see the joke, or will they just see women degrading themselves and model their behavior?

Of course, Unilever is only one of thousands of companies that have used sex to sell products. But I really thought they were different. I’m disappointed.

I’m not sure I want to be one of the first to fly on Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner. I just can’t trust them. For weeks they’ve been promising that the new jet would be delivered on time. Today, the company finally admitted it would be delayed for at least six months.

Now, if they’re willing to lie about shipment dates, couldn’t they also lie about safety, performance, and a host of other things? For example, Boeing claims the delay is not a result of design flaws, but instead the result of delays in the supply chain. Can we believe them?

Even worse, top officials admit that the first Dreamliner, unveiled to 15,000 guests in a fancy ceremony, was really a mess beneath its shiny exterior. Temporary fasteners basically held it together, and none of the wiring or other major components had been installed.

The company says it decided to admit delivery would be late during a meeting to discuss the plane’s progress earlier this week. Are we really to believe that they didn’t have a pretty good idea it would be delayed long before now? Why couldn’t they just tell the truth?

Sure they had competitive issues with Airbus. When that company admitted its A380 jetliner would be delayed by two years, Boeing took away some of their potential customers. (Of course Airbus had long concealed its own manufacturing problems.) Now all 50 Boeing customers face their own delays for replacing aging fleets and expanding their schedules. And they’re probably all a lot less trusting.

“It causes you to ratchet up a notch your healthy skepticism,” said John Plueger of ILFC, Boeing’s biggest Dreamliner customer. Yeah, I agree.

It’s taken me a while to write this because I just haven’t been sure what to make of Steve Jobs’ most recent announcements about the iPhone. I’m still not sure.

I have to reveal I’m a long-time Mac user, so I’m a bit prejudiced in favor of the company. But even looking at things objectively, you have to admit that during the last few years Jobs has been a smart marketer, and a genius at using the media for free publicity. That makes me believe he must have had some strategy in mind for lowering the price of the iPhone when he did. But what was it?

I can understand lowering the price before Christmas, but why so much of a drop? Also, why so long before the holiday and why so soon after the Apple diehards paid full price to be first on their block to get the new gizmo? Even though I admire the company, I’m not usually an early adapter, so I didn’t buy the phone — if I had, though, I would be furious, especially if I’d spent hours waiting in line to get one. Not a good way to keep your most loyal customers coming back.

So Jobs did the right thing by giving them the $100 credit. But why didn’t he do that immediately rather than waiting a day, after the inevitable angry reactions on blogs and chat rooms? And why did he do it at the same time he announced the new iPods, thereby assuring that the news would be buried by the juicier, more controversial iPhone announcement?

Obviously I’m confused, or maybe just not much of a marketer. What was Jobs thinking? Has he just become so arrogant he doesn’t care how his customers feel? What do you think?