Page Two: Thrust and Perry

Look familiar? It's our first Slacker cover, dated July 27, 1990. Chris Walters' cover story captured Richard Linklater and crew's landmark feature on the verge of breaking big, but few could have anticipated the monumental cultural shifts it ushered in. Like Slacker 2011, the filmic update it features, this week's cover is both the same and utterly different. The one thing that never changes is the choice to shoot movies outside during the heat of the Austin summer.

There were very few here at the Chronicle who were surprised by the reactions to the Rick Perry-related full-page ad last issue. It was obvious that it was going to cause controversy. Over the years, there have been similar outcries from some portion of our readers when they found an ad so offensive that they both demanded to know why we ran it and wanted us to be aware of their feelings that we had made a terrible decision. Frequently, those who write in also question our motives in running the ad, accusing us of only doing it for the money.

Having been through this before, we weren't surprised that many of the people who attacked us for running the ad responded to it as though it was Chronicle editorial, authored by us. There is a distinction to be made: We don't author the ads. I'm not trying to be disingenuous here or to minimize this controversy by claiming it was only an ad and then attacking offended readers, as if most complaints about Chronicle content are aimed at ads. The paper has been assailed far less for the content of certain ads than it has been for covers, written editorial content, and issue art (illustrations and photographs).

Still, there is a notable difference between advertisements the Chronicle runs and an issue's editorial content. We sell the space for advertisements. We don't create what is in that space. Outside of outright pornographic, libelous, or illegal content, we run pretty much every ad that is submitted. In the case of ads, the content is up to the advertisers. When it comes to complaints about the editorial- and art-related content of an issue, we accept full responsibility, as it was in the paper as the result of a conscious decision made by one or more of our staff members.

This column is focused specifically on readers' complaints about particular ads in the Chronicle. Over the years, there have been plenty of those – including, in some cases, extremely hostile reactions. The vast majority of these complaints have had to do with ads that readers have regarded as in very bad taste, usually finding them sexist and/or exploitative. Basically, those who write in feel as though community standards and common decency have been violated. I'm not trying to hide behind the language of Supreme Court decisions. Obviously, in a community like Austin, it would be more than futile to try to assess communitywide standards. Still, this doesn't negate the feelings of those who insist that an ad has gone too far. We've run a number of ads, as well as covers and story art, for example, that readers complained were so obviously sexist or sexually exploitative as to be offensive. Sometimes the same ads and art that some readers complained about have been defended by other readers (male and female), but that is not always the case. Tobacco advertising used to be followed by readers' objections.

The range of complaints about ads has never been limited just to content perceived as sexist. At one point, we got letters attacking ads for Doc Martens boots (because they were once the standard gear of violent skinheads, though also that of people skinheads attacked as well as altogether different kinds of people) and asking us to stop running them. Once a person wrote in asking how people could get upset over something as minor as a sexist ad while there was still a hospital in Austin performing circumcisions on newborn baby boys.

In our first year of publication, a controversy erupted involving a classifieds ad that we ran for the National Association for the Advancement of White People. Our feelings were that, given that the number of readers who might want to join would likely be minuscule, it was worth it to remind the vast majority of our readers that racism was alive, active, and prevalent. The classifieds were the target of some who complained about gay personal ads and viciously criticized because some of the ads were from HIV-positive men seeking others with HIV. We, on the other hand, thought that was exactly the kind of service that was indisputably linked to the paper's purpose.

Making decisions related to such advertising has never been very difficult. The opinions of the staff that creates this paper are in the editorial sections. When it comes to advertising, we sell space. Given that core structure, the Chronicle allows enormous latitude to what can be in ads.

Some people think this position is just slick spin, a kind of fancy intellectual two-step designed to create smoke while justifying the unjustifiable. Invariably, they dismiss that stand as vacuous, insisting that our only real motive is to make as much money as possible.

Believe what you want, but to us this has always seemed like an incredibly important, principled position. First, if we don't treat all ads equally, where does that leave us? By censoring some ads for crossing a line, we would be in a very real sense endorsing all the other ads. If our editorial sensibility and standards are not restricted to the content we produce, then logically we would need to vet and vouch for every ad in the paper. We don't and won't do that.

Second, if we were to decide to not run certain ads because, though legal and nonpornographic, they violated certain standards, how would we decide on those standards? None of these ads offended me personally. Should we poll our staff to come up with standards? Should we apply standards that those of us who produce the paper don't hold? Should we poll the readership? If so, how?

Many who objected to the Perry ad will scoff at all these points, claiming that if any ad had ever been overtly, obviously, and completely offensive, it was that one. Does this mean we should censor certain opinions? Does it mean that our own beliefs should determine to whom we grant and deny access to advertising?

We neither created nor authored the Perry ad. We did run it. We would run it again. Although I would be reluctant to encourage a wave of such ads, I will note that, as our Publisher Nick Barbaro responded to a critical letter, if a similar ad was submitted, only it was aimed at President Obama, yes, we would run it.