TitanTiger 20,542 Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Wow, after all the comments and articles I've read over the years from RS chiding any label or radio outlet that "censors" music or refuses to play certain songs or artists, this certainly is ironic. Rolling Stone refuses to run ad for BibleGRAND RAPIDS, Michigan (AP) -- -- Rolling Stone magazine declined to run an advertisement for a new translation of the Bible aimed at young people, the nation's largest Bible publisher said Wednesday. Zondervan, a division of HarperCollins Publishers, bought space in the magazine months ago as part of an ad campaign for Today's New International Version, said Doug Lockhart, Zondervan's executive vice president of marketing. "Last week, we were surprised and certainly disappointed that Rolling Stone had changed their mind and rejected our ad," he said. A telephone message seeking comment was left Wednesday at the New York headquarters of Wenner Media LLC, publisher of Rolling Stone. Lockhart said Zondervan, based in Grand Rapids, paid Wenner Media last July to run the ad in February, when the Bible is due on bookshelves. On Tuesday, USA Today quoted Kent Brownridge, general manager of Wenner Media, as saying his staff first saw the ad copy last week, and "we are not in the business of publishing advertising for religious messages." Lockhart said the ad features the face of a contemplative-looking young man and includes this copy: "In a world of almost endless media noise and political spin, you wonder where you can find real truth. Well, now there's a source that's accurate, clear and reliable. It's the TNIV -- Today's New International Version of the Bible. It's written in today's language, for today's times -- and it makes more sense than ever." Media outlets that agreed to carry the ad include Modern Bride, The Onion, MTV.com and AOL, Lockhart said. AOL, like CNN.com, is a unit of Time Warner. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/20/rollling....e.ap/index.html Can someone help me out here? What exactly is offensive about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,542 Posted January 20, 2005 Author Share Posted January 20, 2005 Here's a little more from a couple of days ago in USA Today. Apparently, RS cannot abide anyone claiming to know Truth: Ad for a Bible doesn't fitBy Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY The nation's largest Bible publisher, rolling out its biggest marketing campaign ever to promote a new translation aimed at "spiritually intrigued 18- to 34-year-olds," has stumbled over a little rock: Rolling Stone. This is the ad rejected by Rolling Stone; it does not mention God. The magazine rejected Zondervan's Bible ad just weeks before its scheduled run date, citing an unwritten policy against accepting ads containing religious messages. Zondervan executives say the entertainment magazine was key in its $1 million campaign to reach young adults who have rarely, if ever, seen Bible ads before. Surveys show that 53% of this age group read the Bible less than once a year or never, although they are huge buyers of books on spiritual and religious themes. Today's New International Version of the Bible (TNIV) is a modern English translation from Zondervan, publisher of the world's best-selling English translation, the 1978 New International Version. The TNIV features updated language and scholarship. The rejected ad shows a serious young man, apparently pondering the problems of modern life. The text touts the TNIV as a source for "real truth" in a world of "endless media noise and political spin." A blue Bible peeks up from the corner of the ad. The Onion, the weekly satirical magazine, will carry a similar ad next month, and the February/March issue of Modern Bride has an ad featuring a woman in bridal white promoting True Identity, the women's study version of the TNIV. More ads are booked for Web sites, including VH1 and MTV. "God" isn't mentioned in any of these, only in ads for Christian media such as Relevant, a Christian monthly magazine aimed at hip twentysomethings. But every ad carries the slogan: "Timeless truth; Today's language" And that assertion of "truth" evidently triggered the rebuff from Rolling Stone. Although Zondervan bought the space in July for a February ad, magazine executives first saw the actual copy only last week and concluded that "it doesn't quite feel right in the magazine," said Kent Brownridge, general manager of Wenner Media, parent company of Rolling Stone. "The copy is a little more than an ad for the Bible. It's a religious message that I personally don't disagree with," Brownridge said, citing "a spiritual message in the text." But, he said, "we are not in the business of publishing advertising for religious messages." He did not comment on why Rolling Stone sold ad space to Zondervan in the first place or whether any Bible ad could be acceptable. "It's hard to have a policy that covers every conceivable product," Brownridge said. Zondervan marketing vice president Doug Lockhart said offers to change the ad text were refused and Rolling Stone would not show them a written policy ruling out religious advertising. "We're really surprised and disappointed," Lockhart said. "Our mission is more people engaging the Bible more, and Rolling Stone was a perfect fit for the group we want to reach. This rejection underscores the challenge we face." http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/...-bible-ad_x.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 434 Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 WOW, but in the same magazing there could be an ad for Ludicris's new album which degrades women, talks about drugs, violence.............. but that's ok. It's protected by the first amendment. But I call this descrimination!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Whats the big deal? It's not like they are disallowing this ad and allowing other ads that promote religions other than Christianity is it? I don't know if they do or not, just asking. (Please forgive me for mentioning religions other than Christianity). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,130 Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I suspect Rolling Stone doesn't even fully grasp what they are uncomfortable with, but they have set a precedent which will either need to be followed across the board in regard to all religious advertising, distinguished and explained or ultimately rejected. Sounds like they went with option three. I guess they found it embarassing to have a policy you can't explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,542 Posted January 23, 2005 Author Share Posted January 23, 2005 Whats the big deal? It's not like they are disallowing this ad and allowing other ads that promote religions other than Christianity is it? I don't know if they do or not, just asking. (Please forgive me for mentioning religions other than Christianity). 141009[/snapback] I guess I'm just trying to understand the rationale for refusing advertising money just because it's for a Bible. They don't have any written policy about religious messages in ads. Seems to me they want to stifle a viewpoint from being expressed in their magazine, no matter how subtle or innocuous...something they rail against when it's the radio, retail or recording industries that does the same thing to an artist's song or album. Inconsistent if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,130 Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Whats the big deal? It's not like they are disallowing this ad and allowing other ads that promote religions other than Christianity is it? I don't know if they do or not, just asking. (Please forgive me for mentioning religions other than Christianity). 141009[/snapback] I guess I'm just trying to understand the rationale for refusing advertising money just because it's for a Bible. They don't have any written policy about religious messages in ads. Seems to me they want to stifle a viewpoint from being expressed in their magazine, no matter how subtle or innocuous...something they rail against when it's the radio, retail or recording industries that does the same thing to an artist's song or album. Inconsistent if you ask me. 141045[/snapback] These things are sometimes baffling. You may recall the United Church of Christ had an ad saying they were open to everyone that some networks would not show. CBS refused "Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups … and the fact that the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the networks." Seems odd to refuse an ad because the President may have different point of view. In this case, the section below is what leads me to think the RS doesn't even know exactly why they feel the way they do: Although Zondervan bought the space in July for a February ad, magazine executives first saw the actual copy only last week and concluded that "it doesn't quite feel right in the magazine," said Kent Brownridge, general manager of Wenner Media, parent company of Rolling Stone. RS has a counterculture genesis rooted in sex, drugs and rock and roll and this ad apparently didn't "feel right." But, I agree, it seems odd that after all these years they haven't formed a more cogent and coherent policy than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 434 Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Good thing Creed broke up, although I know they aren't a Christian Band, might have had a tough time getting ads for a new cd since their music has a sense of spiritual expression Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 336 Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 According to RS's explanation, I guess bands such as Switchfoot, Third Day, Jars of Clay, and a few others that have managed to hit the "mainstream" recently should forget about having RS cover their music/albums... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,481 Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Been telling you guys for years there is nothing more closed minded than an American "Liberal." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,130 Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Been telling you guys for years there is nothing more closed minded than an American "Liberal." 141092[/snapback] Are you sure you've said that before? I don't remember it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,542 Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 Yeah: Newsflash to artists. Don't find God and expect RS to allow you to say anything about it. They don't do religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Well, anyone who needs help from the folks at rolling stone to find their way in this world spiritually is up sheet creek w/o a paddle anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,481 Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Tex, you must be so used to having defend Clinton over the years that you are just used to defending the indefensible. Ths is Censorship, plain and simple. Zondervan said they would rewrite the ad. RS refused. Z asked for a copy of the policy, there is none. This is just simply censorship. No reason, no rhyme, just CENSORSHIP. Dont defend the indefensible. It just makes you look like a Lib Kiss when you do. If this was happening from the right, there would be a couple of Sixty Minutes Segments on it by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,130 Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Tex, you must be so used to having defend Clinton over the years that you are just used to defending the indefensible. Ths is Censorship, plain and simple. Zondervan said they would rewrite the ad. RS refused. Z asked for a copy of the policy, there is none. This is just simply censorship. No reason, no rhyme, just CENSORSHIP. Dont defend the indefensible. It just makes you look like a Lib Kiss when you do. If this was happening from the right, there would be a couple of Sixty Minutes Segments on it by now. 141314[/snapback] I didn't defend it, but if this is the thread you want to get you daily eyepoke in on, I hope you enjoyed it. Have a good day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 434 Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I still call it descrimination! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,542 Posted January 25, 2005 Author Share Posted January 25, 2005 Well, anyone who needs help from the folks at rolling stone to find their way in this world spiritually is up sheet creek w/o a paddle anyway. 141283[/snapback] I don't think anyone has ever even insinuated that this was the point. A company simply wanted to advertise a Bible to a demographic they felt would possibly respond to questions the ad posed. Rolling Stone decided that they would essentially censor that message, which goes against everything they say they believe in about free expresssion and the marketplace. That is a hypocritical stance, especially given the innocuous nature of the product being advertised and the ad copy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tigrinum Major Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Apparently Rolling Stone has had a change of heart... FOX News Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,542 Posted January 25, 2005 Author Share Posted January 25, 2005 Well, kudos to RS for that decision. It's just about being consistent and fair-minded as far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,481 Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I will grudgingly give them the benefit of the doubt. :roll: They must have had someone finally tell them how stoopid this was to the real world. A half page ad in a magazine for the stoned and stoopid, big freakin deal...ONLY because the position was so totally bogus as to being called anything but CENSORSHIP. No written policy, no guidelines, no allowance to rewrite the ad. How Liberal can you get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 434 Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Wonder where CNN ,MSNBC,and TEH NEW YORK TIMES stood on this issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,130 Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 I suspect Rolling Stone doesn't even fully grasp what they are uncomfortable with, but they have set a precedent which will either need to be followed across the board in regard to all religious advertising, distinguished and explained or ultimately rejected. Sounds like they went with option three. I guess they found it embarassing to have a policy you can't explain. \ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.