A word about a word from our sponsors

May 14, 2006

I’ve had a couple of emails about the subject, so I thought I’d take a quick moment to talk a little about my approach to advertising.

As a rule, I don’t reject submitted blog ads and, to date, I haven’t had occasion to do so. I don’t have a written policy per se, but my general approach dictates that I won’t decline ads on ideological grounds. If I start picking and choosing among advertisers based on whether I agree with their product/message/campaign, the ads become an extension of my site and my editorial content. The implicit message would be that I personally approve of every advertiser. I don’t; the ads are a politically-neutral commercial transaction.

In other words, I separate my news/commentary from commercial messages. Is this an absolute rule? No. If someone were trying to pull an intentional scam, I’d feel compelled to reject the ad. If the KKK or Fred Phelps wanted to spread a message of pure hate, they’d have to take their message elsewhere. I reserve the right to exclude messages that promote violence or are, in my opinion, in poor taste.

But my inclination will always be to lean towards inclusion. If Ann Coulter wanted to advertise one of her “books” here, I’ll take her money. If the RNC decided it’d be worthwhile to tout Bush’s “accomplishments” to Carpetbagger readers, I’d laugh about it, and keep laughing on my way to deposit the RNC’s check at my bank.

I find some advertisers terrific; others not so much. In either case, I appreciate the financial assistance they provide for this site and hope readers will, when inclined, click on the ads in the hopes that advertisers will continue to support The Carpetbagger Report.

And now, back to the news….

Three comments:

1) I rely on your listing of “recent entries”, rather than scrolling back and forth, as way of getting to items. I wish you would put it back at the top of the page, so I didn’t have to scroll through the ads just as I used to scroll through the items themselves. With your increasing success in obtaining ads, the “recent entries” is serving less and less as a table of contents.

2) I hope you never drop the “The Orientalist” ad from first place (or nearly first). His mysterious fez-bedecked, wide-eyed face with smirk, only half of which is visible, has become something of an iconic greeting when coming to this site. Image-googling Lev Nussimbaum produces still more exotic pictures, though none quite like the one in your ad. In a way the ad is counterproductive for me: I don’t want to learn anything about him, just be greeted by that basilisk stare/smirk before diving into the topics of the day.

3) Never apologize for separating news from commerce. I wish those who provide the nation with what has clearly become tabloid TV would go back to a similar practice. Maybe then TV news would be worth watching again.

  • And the difference between Fred Phelps’ hate and Ann Coulter’s hate is … I don’t see it.

    Coulter suggested assasinating journalists, bombing the NY Times building, warning only select Supreme Court justices of death threats, etc. Phelps is a hateful prick, but Coulter is just as bad in my book.

  • Coulter actually has one or two orders of magnitude more class than Phelps. Now, I realize we’re still very deep in the negative powers of ten here, but she hasn’t shown up to “protest” at high school graduations, church services, or funerals for fallen soldiers. She hasn’t publicly trampled the U.S. flag (has she?). Phelps is a real freak show. The only thing his performances lack is a sideshow geek biting the heads of chickens.

    • Comments are closed.