“The Oregon Daily Emerald reserves the right to accept or reject any advertising.”
Such simple words for a very complicated issue. That sentence, however, is the beginning of the Emerald’s advertising policy, which came under attack last week because of a promotional campaign from Yahoo! Messenger.
Many readers have seen or heard about the crudely-designed, one-page inserts in the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday issues of the Emerald. The content of the ads — supposedly an attempt by Yahoo! to be edgy — ranged, in the minds of some readers, from being sexist and homophobic to sophomoric to outright threatening. Those same reactions occurred amongst a good portion of the Emerald office.
An estimated 20 people on campus, mostly University administrators and mostly women, called the Emerald office or sent in letters to the editor to register concerns and condemn this newspaper for accepting the ads. Another group of approximately 12 students and leaders of several student groups met personally with me to express that the Yahoo! campaign is just a continuation of what they believe is the Emerald’s irresponsibility when it accepts money to run offensive ads.
Every reader who was outraged, any person who felt threatened by this campaign and anyone who took time to call or write the Emerald with criticism or concern is right. They’re right because that’s how they were impacted by the Yahoo! ads, and they’re right because they took action, hopefully against Yahoo!, as well.
Many students on the newsroom staff — myself included — were embarrassed or angry for three consecutive days when we saw those ads in the Emerald. So, what’s an editor to do? In this case, the best defense is to be up front and explain a bit about how the Emerald operates as an organization.
There are two essential components that keep the Emerald publishing five days a week throughout the school year. Our sales department generates revenue for the paper through its efforts and the newsroom writes stories and snaps photos to fit the space not filled with ads in each day’s issue. While the two departments share office space, we are careful about the information we share on a day-to-day basis.
Just as much as a sales representative doesn’t want a newsroom editor traipsing around his or her space questioning each and every ad sold, I don’t want anyone from the sales department wandering into my office and telling me what stories should run in the newspaper.
That’s not being arrogant or mean-spirited, it just points out that I would rather not be beholden to give any advertiser preferential news coverage based on the prospect of selling an ad to that person or company.
In short, although I was made aware that the Yahoo! campaign was scheduled to run, the sales manager gave me just general information about the content, which is how I prefer to handle that aspect of the operation.
However, ignorance doesn’t excuse responsibility, and my name and title go on every Emerald printed. Therefore, it is my obligation to accept and deal with the criticism when someone is offended by something — anything — that ends up on a page. Under the aforementioned division between the advertising and newsroom departments, however, as far as advertising goes, the buck doesn’t stop on my desk, even if it does slow down.
Which brings us to the concept of an advertising policy.
There are attempts at any newspaper to be careful about the taste and sensitivity of its readership; what you might read or see in Willamette Week won’t end up in The Register-Guard. Although independent from the University, the Emerald uses a college-age audience to determine tastelessness and sensitivity. College students’ definition of what is in bad taste is often broader than society as a whole, which is why Yahoo! chose this newspaper and other college-oriented newspapers across the country to run its campaign.
But several of those students and student leaders who expressed their repulsion and fear to me found the Yahoo! ads to go beyond bad taste, and fall right into an endorsement of what are serious issues in society: rape and homophobia. They also accused the Emerald of endorsing those social ills, and called for an apology in this editorial.
While I am outraged that such advertising flourishes in society and disappointed that it found a place in this newspaper, as just one link on the chain, I cannot apologize for the Emerald’s actions. And I cannot apologize for a newsroom that did not see the ads before they were published. In addition, I am quite comfortable with the belief that no one at the Emerald, in any department, endorses rape or homophobia.
I do, however, commend those readers and students who expressed their outrage, and I call on even more people, especially students, to do the same should a similar advertisement run in the future. According to the Emerald’s advertising manager, the amount of response she received has swayed her to reject any future Yahoo! ads with similar content, just as the initial sentence in this editorial states she can do.
That’s how changes are made in society and I hope that anyone who wants to comment on the advertisements will call Yahoo! or the Emerald and make your voice heard.