🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <402pr3$m...@decaxp.harvard.edu>,
Drew Fudenberg  <fude...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>rw...@panix.com (Russell Webb) wrote:
>
>Sexuality is the driving force behind much of 
>>advertising--why single out CGW and crucify them for it?
>>
>Many magazines get by w/o sex ads, even some computer mags publisged by 
>Z-D, e.g. PC Magazine. In fact of the >10 "aimed at adult" mads coming 
>into our house, only CGW has sex ads. So while the ads aren't awful, and 
>aren't as graphic as they might be, CGW -has- singled -itself- out as 
>having different ad content.
>
>What to do about it is a harder question, but lets not pretend that 
>the ads in question are standard throghout the american mass media.
>>--
>>
>
>-- 
>Drew Fudenberg
>email: fude...@fas.harvard.edu
>http://fudenber.fas.harvard.edu
>
>

This is the point I am trying to raise - what to do about it is the
hard part, given so many other parts of life that are much worse.
We should remember that this is a *part* of a situation that must
be addressed as a whole, not by just boycotting or censoring one
magazine.

If we can't control other parts of the media, then messing with
CGW is useless.  Singling them out is like trying to get one
potato chip company to stop frying it's chips, while ignoring
the whole issue of why people don't watch what they eat.  Sort of.
In a way.  :-)

David Pipes