Unlike some people (including some of my dear friends), I think that people who run newspapers and magazines have a fundamental right to refuse to run anything, for any reason, whether it's news or ads, and I don't think they should have to explain themselves. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them or support or condone their decisions, mind you. I just think that whoever owns and runs the publication should be free to put it together their way, since it is their publication, so long as they remain civilized. Let a thousand flowers bloom, and all that.
Having said that, if I ran a newspaper and someone brought these ads in and wanted to run them, I'm almost certain I'd have taken the money and I'd have run them. And since I have a blog, which I am free to run my way (at least under current conditions), I am happily linking to the rejected ads, for free, just to help the would-be advertisers get their views out. (So there ;-).
Surprised by Oxford by Carolyn Weber
-
I read this memoir conversion story on my Kindle back in 2011 when it first
was published. I said then that I enjoyed the story, but it left me feeling
. ....
1 day ago
8 comments:
Good for you, Kathryn. I intend to link to this too.
Joan, The more the merrier, I say...
I think that when we discuss whether a newspaper does or should have the right to run whatever they want, we sometimes have to define what we mean by that. (This is necessary due to the left's re-definitions of the word "right".)
Should newspapers have the right to print whatever they choose and call themselves "objective" without governmental sanction, whether jail, fines, or what-have-you? ABSOLUTELY.
Should newspapers have the right to print whatever they choose and call themselves "objective" without the rest of us pointing out their clear bias and voting against them with our wallets? NO.
This sort of thing is an outrage, it betrays our trust (well, the trust of those who still believe in the media), and it should be decried at every level. I'm sure you agree.
Michelle, I'm just saying that people shouldn't be able to walk in off the street and pretend it's their paper. Absolutely I'm for pointing out bias and voting with my wallet. And, ehem, as with this post, doing end runs around them when called for :-).
I think the whole "too graphic" thing is malarkey (so much so that I posted ultrasound pix of my own son on my site to make a point--something it would never have occurred to me to do in a million years, if not for the flap in Illinois).
That said, I think it's important to point out that the ad side of newspapers really is separate from the editorial side at most papers, far and away most of the time. When I worked in editorial, the ad people where outright looked down upon.
So I'm not sure you can/should truly judge the "objectivity" of a paper by the ads it runs. Not that there aren't plenty of other reasons to question that, within the editorial side ....
Only sayin'.
Great post, Kathryn.
reader iam, Good point.
I worked as a reporter/photograher/editor for about ten years, and the relationship between the folks in our half of the building and the folks in the ad department's half of the building was sometimes pretty strained. (Especially when they came over and told us we had to do a nice feature story on someone because they'd bought a big ad. That never went down well, and sometimes almost came to fistfights. They saw it as good business. We saw it as selling our souls...)
It really was two businesses under one roof. We couldn't live without them and they couldn't live without us, and although we were friendly most of the time, it was at best a truce the rest of the time, and we definitely marched to the beat of different drummers.
Another point I'd like to make in general is that I'm not sure that the newspaper honchos who refused the ads thought the pictures were too graphic, or whether they found the messages too graphic. I can't get inside their heads, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the whole in-your-face anti-PC-ness of the ads that they couldn't handle.
One other small point: In looking at the ads to which you link, it's pretty clear to me that the ultrasound "pictures" have been touched up and enhanced. On the one hand, I can understand that. On the other hand, it's problematic. What, the "real thing" can't speak for itself?
This sort of speaks to my problems with this whole issue (and partly explains my ultrasound pix).
Cool that you're a former journalist, too, Kathryn.
I shoulda figured. : )
Post a Comment