A Tough Issue
Women who expressed mixed feelings about advertisers attempting to prevent media content were torn between having distaste for censorship and believing that a company has the right to express a view.The follow quotes summarize the theme:
That's a hard one.I don't like anybody telling me what I can or can't read.I get so mad at these other parents who want to keep books out of the school library instead of teaching their kids how to decide for themselves what's good and bad.But I can understand an advertiser not wanting to have to align themselves with an idea presented in a show or a magazine that they really don't believe in.Boy that's hard.
I guess if you're buying ads you have the right to say you won't advertise if there is stuff in the magazine you don't like.But that's sort of the same thing as censorship.If the magazine needs your ads to pay the bills,I guess you have the upper hand.I guess I understand it,but I don't like it.
Every once in a while my preacher tells us to write letters to advertisers or not buy things from advertisers who buy ads in shows that are harmful.I've never really felt comfortable with that.I know that we should be vocal in ****** sure our views are heard and I don't like a lot of what I see on TV.Since advertisers pay for the shows I know that letting our feelings be known to them can be effective for us.But I just don't like the idea of having somebody else be in control of what I see or hear.I guess there is always somebody else in control of that,but I don't know.I've never actually done it,just because I'm not comfortable with it.I think I'd rather see something bad and have the chance to explain why I think it's bad to my kids than to not ever expose them to things.
·Both Magazines and Advertisers Have Something to Lose
“You know,this whole thing is just bad for both sides.I think both magazines and advertisers have something to lose here.”This comment summarizes the ill effects consumers'knowledge of advertiser-induced censorship over media content could have on both advertisers and magazines.While a few women said that the practice would not adversely affect their views of either the advertiser or the magazine,the majority of the participants felt differently.They tended to feel both advertisers and editors are in the wrong.
I would be disappointed in my magazines if I knew they caved in.Yea,I'd probably stop reading them.But if everybody caves in,I don't know what would be left to read.
I think I'd be more angry with the advertiser than the magazine.The magazine sort of has a gun to its head and the advertiser is the one holding it,you know.So I just don't think a company should try to keep me from seeing information.It's like they are telling me I'm too stupid to make up my own mind,or maybe that's what they are afraid of,that I can make up my own mind.Either way,I have a gun,too.I don't have to buy their products.
Advertisers shouldn't threaten people and magazines should not change editorial content for fear of losing advertisers.
The greater question seems to be,whom do we blame more while some of the women place the onus on advertisers the more common feeling is that the magazines shoulder the responsibility.
I would definitely blame the editor because in the end it's the editor's responsibility how the magazine is presented to the consumer.And I think the advertiser is going to want anything they can get.They're going to push the limits as far as they can to get their products out on the market in the eye of the public.So I think it's the editor's responsibility to be sure they practice ethically.When I look at the magazine I don't think,“Oh,this advertiser snuck in here.”It's the editor's responsibility so I look badly on the magazine not the advertiser.
(Advertisers)can express concern but if you(editors)allow advertisers to do that,they you set a precedent and every time there is something they don't like,whether it is a valid reason or not,they have control over your publication.Ultimately the consumer gets hurt because he or she is not getting the news that they need or desire.People are trusting(editors)to give more accurate information and they are not expecting them to be filtered.
Like I said,it is(the magazines')responsibility to let readers know what is going in the world.If they upset their advertisers,then they should get new ones.If they lose their readers,that would be more detrimental to the magazine.
It's like a kid asking their parents for candy.It's the parents'fault if they give it to them and their teeth rot and fall out,you know I think that's a child's way of just testing their parents,testing their authority to see how far they can go.And I think it might be the same way for advertisers.
·Credibility Has Already Been Lost
Women seem accepting of complementary editorial largely because it is seen as additional information in a different format.They are not at all receptive to advertisers limiting information flow.While they feel that some subjects are more important than others,they think all should be addressed.When it comes to censorship,women see little difference between product information and dialogue on important issues.Once a magazine engages in such practices,credibility is lost.One woman said the following when asked if it was fair of advertisers to pressure magazines:
No,I don't think it's fair.I think it's a little less of an infraction if a fashion magazine does it because it's kind of like an expendable,not a big thing almost.But as for a news magazine it's completely unethical and I completely disagree with it.
When later asked if the type of story changed her feelings about the practice she answered,“Nope.Nope.”The following comment further illustrates the difference:
If it was a serious news-based magazine,then I would expect more from them than say a tabloid.The type of story should not matter because as long as it is true it should be told.
