Friday, November 2, 2012

The Commercial Appeal Seemingly Contradicts Its Own Ad Policy

Posted By on Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:25 PM

We’ve learned something about The Commercial Appeal’s management this week: They don’t think much of gay people. The newspaper won’t take sexual enhancement ads on the grounds that some readers might be offended. But it will run full page advertorials — advertisements that look like articles — warning readers of the homosexual agenda to seduce and convert heterosexual children, as it did last Sunday when it ran an ad titled "The Whole Truth About Homosexuality."

A screenshot from the Commercial Appeals anti-gay ad that ran on Sunday, October 28th
  • A screenshot from the Commercial Appeals anti-gay ad that ran on Sunday, October 28th

CA Editor Chris Peck issued this written response to complaints about the anti-gay ads: "The Commercial Appeal fully supports the rights of people to express opinions, even opinions we or others might find objectionable. This right to express opinion is fundamental to a free press and the First Amendment. And it's why we accept advertising that doesn't necessarily reflect our newspaper's editorial page positions. In relation to homosexuality, the newspaper editorial board actively has opposed any kind of discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, and will continue to do so. These two core principles will continue to guide us as we consider future advertising and news coverage."

Compare Peck’s defense to comments by the CA’s president and publisher George Cogswell from the article “Certain Ads Declined,” published July 13, 2012: “The Commercial Appeal has stopped accepting ads from a national vendor whose products are promoted as sexual enhancements.

"While the products are legal and protected under free speech laws, we recognize the sensibilities of those who find the ads to be of questionable taste," said George H. Cogswell III, president and publisher. "We have made the decision to discontinue publishing the ads out of respect for our readers."

What can be concluded by the fact that the CA refuses some ads because they may offend valued readers but accepts ads that make Jim Crow-style accusations that an entire group of people are engaged in conspiracy and perversion?

Tags: , ,

Comments (31)

Showing 1-31 of 31

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-31 of 31

Add a comment

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Readers also liked…

People who saved…

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT
© 1996-2014

Contemporary Media
460 Tennessee Street, 2nd Floor | Memphis, TN 38103
Visit our other sites: Memphis Magazine | Memphis Parent | Memphis Business Quarterly
Powered by Foundation