To the Editor:
I have read letters in each of the last two issues which
represent themselves as responses to Hunter Aldrich’s letters concerning the
Chronicle’s practice of publishing tasteless sex ads. Neither of those
letters addressed in even the most cursory fashion Ms. Aldrich’s arguments. The
writers confined themselves to frat-boy insults about Ms. Aldrich’s sex life.
Since the two writers apparently missed the point the first time, I will repeat
it to them.
The Chronicle presents itself as a supporter of
women’s political and economic freedom, yet apparently gets a large part of its
advertising revenue from businesses which actively undermine that goal, by
presenting women as mindless toilets for male body fluids. This is hypocrisy.
Neither I nor Ms. Aldrich believe that people whose salaries are paid by X-tasy
Tan could seriously espouse feminism. If the Chronicle took to
publishing ads from the Klan or the Nazis, would not most readers question its
commitment to ending racism?
Unfortunately, most men apparently see women as the one
acceptable group to insult. No reasonable person could argue that “hot, young
sluts” is designed to present women as intelligent, rational, or independent.
These “services” further the idea that women exist solely to be instruments of
male pleasure, as beneath human dignity. I am not arguing that the government
should ban these businesses, although I would dearly love to see them in
bankruptcy. I do believe that the Chronicle has an obligation to show
some respect for its women readers and staff members, and stop taking money
from those who do not have such respect.
Most sincerely,
Karen Cox
P.S. Has anyone ever asked any of your women staff how the
sex ads affect them?
It’s a question that arises fairly often around here, from
readers and, occasionally, staff as well: Why do we run those ads?
You know the ones. The sex ads, the tobacco ads, the ads for
liquor companies and for events at Barton Creek Country Club, the gay ads, the
abortion services ads, and the anti-abortion ads. The ones you don’t like, and
the ones (sometimes) that no one around here likes, either. Have we no
standards?
The answer is (with some exceptions in classifieds), we
hardly ever refuse ads because of their content. The rationale is based on a
couple of related themes, and both of them boil down to hoping that we can
trust our readers.
If it’s a matter of information or political speech, we’d
feel extremely uncomfortable telling someone that we so disagree with their
views that they can’t even buy space to tell their side of the story. We’ll
tell our side of the story in editorial, if appropriate (and we’ve had more
than one case where we’ve sold an ad, and run directly refuting editorial copy
directly opposite it), and the readers can draw their own conclusions.
If, as is more common, it’s a matter of advertising a
potentially deleterious product or service – tobacco, porn – we figure that if
an advertiser is spending money to reach our readers, then our readers must
have some interest in their product, and who are we to tell them that they
shouldn’t… (fill in the verb: smoke? beat off to dirty pictures? eat fatty
foods? drink?)
Underlying all this, of course, is the fact that we make our
livings, and produce this paper, with advertising revenue. It’s a fairly
straightforward equation: A page of advertising pays for a page of editorial.
If a full-page ad from RJR Tobacco pays for a page of copy on, say, water
transfers from the Colorado River Basin (p.15), that’s an equation we can live
with. Our main responsibility, as always, is to do as good a job as we can with
the editorial space.
Still, when faced with the above letter from Karen Cox,
we realized that it had been a while since we’ve explained that reasoning, or
queried the ever-expanding staff about their feelings on the matter. So, in the
spirit of her P.S., we circulated the letter and polled the staff with the
following question:
As you probably know, the Chronicle‘s ad
acceptance
policy has always been extremely liberal – in 14 years, we’ve almost never
refused an ad for content, except in cases involving legal issues or fraud.
We’ve run ads for strip joints, white supremacist groups – even for
Freeport-McMoRan. And yes, if the KKK wanted to place an ad with us, we would
almost certainly run it. Do you:
n Agree with this policy, or n Think we
should be more restrictive/discriminating?
The survey was confidential but coded by gender, and the
results probably come as no surprise – about a 4-1 landslide in favor of the
current policy. Women backed it by 16-4, men by 11-3.
Comments were welcomed, but not solicited; interestingly,
all
seven of the ballots that came back with comments were from women who voted for
the policy. They ranged from reservations about the policy to further
amplifications of it. What follows (since you asked, Ms. Cox) are the
highlights:
“I agree with the policy as long as it’s limited to
advertising and not editorial. It’s editorial’s job to counter repellent
ideology, not advertising’s. If a requirement for being a feminist is the total
financial independence from all things sexist, there’s not a woman alive who
wouldn’t be barefoot & pregnant… Does that mean they couldn’t be
feminist?”
“More porn ads!”
“I hate those ads but I also ignore them. And, they pay
my
salary.”
“I am more offended by her (Karen Cox’s) condescending
attitude towards the sex industry and leisure industry workers… fuck that
classist, sexphobic shit, man.”
“I do agree with our policy of accepting almost any ad.
As
far as this paper being true to its idea of a `free press for the people,’ I
think this policy fits and has integrity, even if it’s only us journalist types
who can see it. Plus, a racist-developer-pervert’s money is printed in the same
country as mine. I also see a problem, a kind of tug at the heart, at printing
ads that disagree with the general tone of the paper. But I guess in this case,
it is important to put principle over emotion. As to how these ads affect me, I
feel perfectly safe, and free from sexual harassment of any kind in this
office, but outside this building, I still find the same attitudes the reader
addresses in her letter.”
“I agree with the policy to accept all ads, but not
without serious reservations. I consider myself a feminist and a supporter of
free speech. I think readers need to understand that we are not endorsing a
particular business or type of business by printing their ad. In fact, the more
we restrict ads the more we imply our approval and support of the ads that we
do run. This would leave us even more vulnerable to attack and pressure from
people who object to ads for any number of reasons, and it would increase our
responsibility for any harm that might result from any ad.
Now, for the reservations. Yes, I do believe that these
ads harm and exploit women in obvious and not-so-obvious ways. I think women
who object to them often have legitimate complaints and I would like to see a
less patronizing and defensive response on the part of the Chronicle.” n
This article appears in June 2 • 1995 and June 2 • 1995 (Cover).