🚀 go-pugleaf

sk...@chat.carleton.ca (Sean Kaye) writes:

>Ads are NOT considered content... Ads are just that ads... I do not
>buy the magazine for the ads, I buy them for the articles...

That's right. And like commercials on radio and tv it is not necessary 
for ads in CGW to have anything to do with the editorial content. In 
fact, magazines like CGW are quite lucky to be able to live off ads that 
contribute to their editorials. But it's not common. In most types of 
media the ads have little or nothing to do with the information that they 
are placed in.

>So to
>appease people ads should be neutral and non-offensive... I mean
>really, think what you will of the magazine's journalistic quality,
>but when a raging debate begins over certain types of ads, that is not
>good...

Is it "wise" to avoid gay love scenes on television, because the 
advertisers might walk away? Was it good to avoid black people in leading 
movie roles because the public might be offended? Is it good to avoid 
harmless sex ads because some readers and advertisers might find them 
uncomfortable?

You may find it "good" for a magazine to do what people with big mouths want 
them to do. If find it good if a mag is a little more progressive than 
that, if it challenges people's intellect and if it doesn't care much 
about illogical ancient Victorian moral values. If they can get away with 
it financially, then by all means, please let them continue.

>would be made... The entire GENRE gets no mention by the magazine, so
>therefore I must assume that in the editorial board's opinion it has
>no place in the magazine, yet the ads are still there... I think this
>is what offends me...

Like you and I already agree: ads don't belong to the contents of the 
mag. They are there for the money. If they happen to contribute to the 
very meaning of the magazine itself, then hurray, we have a quite unique 
product here. If they don't, no problem.

>Oprah doesn't pick her commercials... She picks her sponsors though,
>and I don't think we'll be seeing a sponsorship by the Klan anytime
>soon... She knows better than to offend some members of the viewing
>audience by wrecklessly picking sponsors...

This has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. You don't 
call tv shows or radio shows to complain about the commercials not having 
any relative 'content'. Or do you?  Then why do people do so with a 
magazine?

Jurgen.