Monday, May 01, 2006
Ms.....a woman in charge
A magazine should not be required to be an open forum for all advertisers...just because they can pay. A newspaper is expected to be the "voice" of the people who read it. It is to represent the ideas and values of it's readers. When a paper does not represent what the reader expects it should....then, watch out....the newspaper will hear about it! But a magazine, a corporation, should have the choice to decide what products that it will advertise. I work part-time at a local movie theater. I'm sure we all can remember the "Brokeback Mountain Saga" and the controversy that surrounded it and it's distribution....especially in Salt Lake at Larry Miller's movie complex. He chose to not release the film at his theater. It is his theater and he got to decide what will runs and what doesn't run. He felt that what he released at his complex in some way defines who he is and what his values encompass. He felt that his reputation would be compromised and his business may suffer. Here in Logan, the film was released and the consumer was able to use their agency and decide to see the film or not to see the film. Both sides of the issue got some strong "feedback" from the public. Maybe Larry could have made a disclaimer and posted it up on the screen with all of the pre-movie "commercials"--- just like the networks do before the late night infomercials run... clearly stating that he does not endorse the products advertised and are in no way responsible for their claims. (The ads or the movie?) So, use at your own risk. Ultimately the ownership of any magazine should have the final say in what "graces" (or doesn't grace) their pages. Their image is at stake...and image is important. They shaould be allowed to "pay the bills" however they choose to.