Too Graphic

The newspaper probably objected to the fact that the babies were naked. With the Janet Jackson scandal still fresh in peoples’ minds, the media can’t be too careful this time of year.

Those are perhaps the most beautiful, poignant and effective pro-life ads I ahve ever seen. What a shame.

I agree with Rick; they are beautiful!

Once again someone is afraid of offending people, and not looking at the fact that aborting one of these little wonders is murder. A cry for help, and it’s considered too much.
You know, Buffy and Chuck at the country club reading the news paper over breakfast and Buffy loosing her breakfast over such a tastless picture. How crass is that!

In stead of news papers, could we just get a bill board? I mean I’ve seen people grabbing themselves, more than half naked people advertizing everything under the sun, men in underwear selling rubbers, ummm…can’t we get in on this too?

>

Alas, mine, too. Guess we have to register.

& I bet these ‘tolerant, open-minded’ publications would defend an artist’s ‘right’ to depict Christ disrespectfully!

Their hypocrisy is glaring! How can a newspaper think they have the right to decide what truth is? They are supposed to herald the facts in any given situation- not create them… or censor them!

Another perfect example of abortion apologists and their squeemish, unwitting (or witting, who knows?)allies in the media wanting to keep abortion as abstract as algebra. Show something real and tangible and watch the roaches scatter.

I don’t think it’s unwitting at all. They know exactly what they’re doing. Dr Nathanson, who became pro-life after performing abortions for years, talks about the clinics’ careful attention to vocabulary and message.

I agree it’s scandalous these weren’t published, but many people who posted here have obviously never worked at a newspaper, because you don’t understand how all of these places work.

The Editorial department, which writes all the articles, takes the pictures, writes the editorial (ie. all the CONTENT parts of the paper) have absolutely no contact with the advertising department. None. In fact, it is forbidden for an editorial staff member to set foot on the advertising floor, and vice versa. We are not allowed to talk about our work to each other — all the way up to the top. The only person who has (usually limited) access to both is the publisher, and he/she tends to be somewhat hands-off on both.

This is the truth throughout the US, Canada and Western Europe. Ask anyone who’s worked in papers, especially major dailies.

So it’s unfair to blame the reporters and editors (the people we usually associate with that unfair bias) for the commercial decisions of the paper. And ads are not considered part of the usual “freedom of speech” stuff, because a publisher has every right to refuse to publish any ad from any third party for any reason.

That being said, this action is still absolutely scandalous. If I was a member of the group who had their ads refused, I’d call that paper’s ombudsman, along with the best investigative reporter on their staff. And I’d do so with a nice, quiet, neutral tone. Approach a reporter or paper angry, and you come off as a nutball. Approach them calmly, and they make take up your case on the basis of freedom of speech, media bias, etc.

Most reporters honestly believe they’re unbiased about this. The way to challenge them is with calm logic.