Word: ad
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1970-1979
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...ad didn't run because a majority of editors at Thursday's staff meeting decided it was too offensive, and was grossly at odds with the papers stated policy of condemning sexism and the exploitation of women. Those editors made a specific editorial decision--one that will, in the upcoming years, probably have a considerable effect on The Crimson's relations with its advertisers, and its readers. Because that decision strikes at issues that are central to the paper's role in the Harvard community, and tie in with crucial considerations of journalistic philosophy and ethics, those...
...principle arguments against running the ad came from those who determined that it was simply too offensive to appear in the pages of The Crimson. Given the paper's commitment to the elimination of sexism in American thought, they argued, it had to be especially sensitive to this question; and this case certainly, was an example of gross insensitivity. Even worse, the argument went, the appearance of such an ad in The Crimson's advertising columns would prove us hypocrites: pious about condoning sexism in our editorials, we would nonetheless be proved not so pure when it came to taking...
...base, the decision of the majority stemmed from a judgement that the Philosophy Playboy respresents, and the way in which it wished to treat Radcliffe students, are offensive. Surely there are no other criteria: the ad was not deceptive, nor libelous, nor dangerous to the social order; it did not directly promote the economic or political subversion of the would-be models, nor did it compel them to do anything against their wills. It simply was likely to offend many readers, as it offended a majority of the staff...
...argue, as some of the majority did, that this advertisement was in the same category as those for Krugerrands or South African diamonds, is to ignore the key issue of choice. We refused to take Krugerrand or diamond ads because they contributed, in a direct way, to the maintenance of a clear injustice, built into the structure of the South African economy--a system from which repressed black workers cannot escape, and which continues to deprive them of tangible economic and political rights. It is difficult to see how this argument of repression can apply to an ad which presents...
...majority argued, to accept an ad from Playboy is to condone what Playboy stands for--the smirking, leering, pseudo-sophisticated brand of smuttiness that has, for 25 years, gone further to promote sexist thinking than any other publication. No matter how hard the minority might protest, no matter how fervently it might agree that the Playboy life-style and philosophy are degrading, it was saddled with the label of sexist. The connection between the acceptance of an ad and the endorsement of the advertiser's beliefs and public statements is too clear, the majority said...