Letters
LettersInform, don’t misinform
Editor:
In response to the "Question of the week," with regard to
printing
controversial advertisements, I agree wholeheartedly that
controversial ads
should be accepted – as long as they’re advertising
something.
The purpose of advertisements is to inform readers of events,
services
and products available, not to espouse political, religious or
any other
views. That’s what the opinion section of a newspaper is for.
This is not
an issue of free speech.
These groups that try to "advertise" their ideas are not
prohibited from
writing letters to the editor or guest editorials and columns.
Prohibiting
this would be a violation of free speech, but limiting
advertisements to
legitimate ones is not.
Further, you ask about misleading and false claims. Newspapers
should
not make a practice of printing false information. The
newspaper’s purpose
should be to inform, not misinform.Rachel Miller
Second-year
Pre-political science
Free speech and the dollar
Editor:
In response to this week’s question, newspapers must run
controversial
advertisements because of their responsibility to their
readership and
therein to themselves. As a student who has been an account
executive at
the Daily Bruin, and an intern with two advertising agencies and
several
media outlets, I have come to understand the important and
integral role of
advertising in our capitalistic society.
In a society that is like a complex machine of buying and
selling,
advertising is the fuel that drives our country. Advertising
tugs at the
heart of our fears, fantasies and needs to spark a system of
political,
social and economic exchange that impacts and influences
everyone and
everything, including the media.
Despite the responsibility to report the news, the media must
balance
editorial coverage with advertising space. Although the First
Amendment
would best be served if practiced without pressures and
proclivities, the
media business is like any other business, one that is burdened
by the
bottom-line.
For newspapers, television stations and radio stations
alike,
advertisements serve as the lifeblood that finances their
existence and
facilitates their reporting. Advertisements, even controversial
ones, are
an inescapable reality for the media because they provide the
means to an
end which we all take part in.
In fact, I would argue that the economic impact of
advertisements even
outweighs those of free speech. The livelihood of the media is
dictated as
much by finances as by free speech – two different factors that
have the
same consequential effect. But I believe that today, the media
would sooner
guarantee their existence tomorrow than the ideals of
yesterday.
Nevertheless, I believe that all advertisers need to pass
certain
thresholds of decency and obscenity as our laws already
dictate.
Advertisers need to meet, but not surpass such thresholds,
particularly at
an institution like UCLA – a school renown for progressive
thought and
regressive financial standing.
When all is said, done and considered, controversial ads will
always run
in America for financial, if not free speech reasons. And that
is fine with
me because I enjoy my free speech and my newspaper’s free speech
– even if
at the cost of a little controversy.Karman Ng
Senior
Political science/Asian American
studies specialization