I figured I could get a fellow blogger's attention, thanks for the direct reply, I appreciate it.

I myself have made money in ways I'm not proud of when situations were tight. But I haven't peddled deadly addictions.

And while other local papers might be willing to publish these same inserts if they had the youthful demos tobacco companies were targeting, they seem to be managing to give paychecks to their writers without them.

Is the Mercury's financial situation so much worse than other papers' that it justifies the harm to society? I realize this could be a sensitive issue -- I know I wouldn't want to be talking about my own finances -- but you chose your defense.

And I'm sticking to it. Good day.

Hey James X! Congratulations on making it through your life so far without "peddling dangerous addictions." Here's the way our newspaper works: We produce our paper through advertising. The lion's share of our advertising comes from businesses that would be considered—even by your high moral standards—to be not so harmful to society. (BOY, IS THAT ARGUABLE OR WHAT??) Now, here's the important part: Our editorial department and sales department are practically different entities, and other than share an office, we don't stick our noses in each others business. That way if we were to ever "write about raising cigarette taxes" (SNORE!!), we would do so without a second thought—because I have no idea what ads we're running this week. And if we do lose the account because of what we wrote, then cest la vie.
As for the morality of running these ads or not, I personally am secure in the knowledge that our readers aren't idiots, and can judge for themselves whether or not to put chewing tobacco in their mouths. (I personally choose not to, because, well… EWWW!)
Good topic, though, James X!

You say, "I can stomach it if you can." Maybe you're referring to this debate, but I think you're alluding to the ad itself. And it's true that I'm looking at an entire double-truck of Snus advertising right here on my desk, with yet more available if I flip it over, and I have yet to experience any personal harm. But your or my harm is not the issue. RJR chose your publication for a reason. Most people start using tobacco when they're young, and people who start young tend to keep using. They know these ads work in getting people to try chewing tobacco, and anyone familiar with the tobacco or publishing industry knows exactly what RJR is up to here.

> I don’t like tobacco companies. But I do > like my paycheck every two weeks.

Is not this the very definition of a "sell-out."

The thing about ethics is, you have to take them seriously, even if that means a hit in the wallet. To live any other way is to continually demean yourself.

This whole argument seems silly to me. Newspapers, even alt-weeklies like the Merc, don't work like blogs. Humpy stated it already... ad sales and editorial don't mix (except for the annual auction, but that's for charity). End of story. Not an issue. NEXT!

Hi William! Or Wm., whatever. (I don't know if it's a b!X thing where you get all crabby if it's not exactly so.)

Let me see if I can boil down your first argument:

"Once you're done pulling the obtrusive Snus thing out of our paper, we're actually pretty socially responsible."

I think this boils down further to, "ignoring the issue makes it go away."

Your second argument is that sales and editorial are separate. Which I believe. And while I thought Scott Moore was being ridiculous with his criticism of the tobacco tax, I doubt he was actually trying to, I don't know, appease RJR, or that RJR would even care. (I actually think fairly highly of Scott.) Is just the appearance of conflict of interest something to care about? It's a standard for some.

And your final argument is that your readers aren't stupid, so they won't use tobacco.

I'm pretty sure RJR has studies to prove you wrong.

I don't have high moral standards. I don't think my refusal to sell crack makes me a saint. But even crack kills way fewer people than tobacco.

Mikey: The Merc's reputation isn't what I care about, either. What I care about is:

- The Merc has young readers.
- Advertising tobacco to youth is a crime for a reason.

The crime is on RJR's part, of course. The Merc's just facilitating it.

Anything else you'd like to keep from the eyes of our impressionable young readers (most of whom are around 25)? How about Savage Love?

Back when I was a kid Doctors advertised Chesterfield cigarettes on TV. Cigarette and Booze ads were on billboards, in magazines, and on the airwaves. My in-utero diet was nicotine, caffeine and Jim Beam.

Lighten up everybody: Look how well I turned out!

I'm all for young people knowing about sex in frank terms. I'm not a prude.

You're right, Wm., the Merc is not Disney Magazine. RJR can't advertise in Disney magazine, else they would, just like they advertised in Disney cartoons.

So, given these restrictions, they target youth wherever they can. In this case, they chose the general-interest publication with the largest youth demos in town.

And given a median age of 25, and a two-thirds audience that has not gone to college, my estimation is you've got a lot of minors in high school that RJR can illegally target.

A note from the Publisher

The Mercury is pretty open to printing things many people find offensive or simply don't agree with, in fact it is our mission. I want the Mercury to be the media that does not filter every damn thing so as not to offend anyone. I believe the reader has the responsibility to filter. The same goes with advertising. The only ads we don't accept are those promoting obvious illegal activities. I don't make it my business to know the business of those who would like to advertise, I don't judge their business or their personal or professional activities.

If you don't like Snus, complain about it. We will print your complaints just as we print (or distribute) ads from tobacco companies, liquor companies, strip clubs...even christians.

Rob Crocker
Publisher

Wm. (#9): Such debate judo! Why address ethics issues when you can instead talk about censorship! I mean, that's what this is about, right? Censorship! Boo! Booooo! We hate censorship! I can't believe James X wants us to censor -- that's commie talk! Boo, James X!

We all have to deal with ads we don't like. So, sure, some kids are going to inadvertently see the ads (and the word fuck! oh no!) if they read the Mercury. But there's no point of sale. Kids are much more likely to be influenced by people in their lives-- so if Mom or Dad smokes Junior might, too. Much higher chance than if he decides to start smoking b/c of the ad in a newspaper. The Mercury accepts advertising from a legal business, what's the big deal, really?

Yeah! I agree with tODD! BOO CENSORSHIP!

p.s. Hai-yah!

I'll copy my reply to Rob that I posted over at Loaded O:

Thanks for replying! Clearly, the most endearing characteristic of the Portland Mercury is that it is as freewheeling as Portlanders are. I hope that never changes.

The Portland Mercury does accept ads for "obviously illegal activities." I'm looking right now at a naked young woman by the name of "Harlot" who is located on 64th and Foster and will cost me a solid $100. To find her, type in portlandmercury.com and click "Adult" > "Yes, I want to see naughty things!" > "Naughty Northwest Portland" > "Escorts" > "Harlot." Given that Index Publishing has created a whole specialized hierarchical catalog for Ms. Harlot to reside in, I'm assuming you're aware of the practice.

But I don't care about hooking. I even think it should be legal.

Now, advertising tobacco to youth is also illegal. But as I acknowledged over at Blogtown, you're not committing the crime here, you're just facilitating it, kind of like you're doing with our good friend Ms. Harlot.

So, since I don't have a problem with Ms. Harlot selling her wares, how can I have a problem with RJR doing the same?

Well, to the best of my knowledge, Ms. Harlot does not kill half of her customers. If she did, I would expect you to refuse her ads, too.

First they came for the tobacco ads...

Then they came for the escort ads...

Then they came for the... liquor ads?

dear mercury,

i'm writing to ask where your morals are when you continue to accept advertising by companies that promote foods that are high in cholesterol and sugar. i'm talking about all your restaurant ads. heart disease is the number 1 cause of death in the united states. nothing else kills more people than heart disease. fatty foods should be illegal and we all know it.

how do you explain accepting ads for the #1 killer? if you were a decent paper you would remove all restaurant ads that carry items that are made with animal fat, trans fat, milkfat, fat fat, and seitan. (because seitan is just gross.)

i earn my paycheck through a business that does not peddle in death. you need to live by my standards, not your own.

sincerely,
merc reader #3001

Godwin's law is proven again!

"First they came for the Jews" was a reference to Hitler and the Nazis, of course. And, just to carry the argument forward, Hitler was the one who was killing the Jews. (They even came for Niemöller.)

So, if we're going to use Hitler analogies, the more appropriate one I believe would be, "First they came for Hitler, and I did not speak out because it was Hitler and he killed, like, six million Jews. And I was pretty happy when he shot himself, too."

Dear merc reader #3001,

If you don't eat fat, you die. Kind of the opposite of tobacco.

Sincerely,
James X.

a) The separation of editorial and advertising makes the editorial question a total non-issue, as Mikey said earlier.

b) The tobacco industry is really nasty! And by nasty, I mean that they have a history of illegal and immoral actions. Ick! Boo on the tobacco industry!

c) Some of that nasty rubs off on the Mercury when they run big ol' ads for tobacco. Especially Snus (slogan: "Hey kids, you can chew it in school!"). Is it Wrong, in an ethical sense, for the Merc to run Snus ads? I don't really know. But it's pretty unappealing, and it has an effect on how I feel about the paper in general.

Hi Josh, I'll just take this opportunity again to agree that Scott Moore didn't do anything wrong. Someone unfamiliar with how a newspaper works may see otherwise, though, such as the many people who point out a column or editorial to claim that the news is biased. It's totally not my place to decide for the Mercury what their policy should be on that, though.

Personally, I have no problem with taking money from big tobacco for a lousy, annoying ad campaign and spending it on editorial content that pisses off big tobacco. It annoys the ad sales people, but not nearly so much as when we run a negative review of a restaurant that advertises with us.

Having seen the same Snus insert in WW a couple weeks ago, the bigger problem with this particular ad campaign is that the inserts are designed to fall out of the paper and make a mess. Nobody wants the things, so they shove them back in the box. The Merc boxes in NW look pretty awful this morning, just like ours did when we ran the stupid thing, with discarded, slick oblongs clogging the interior.

The strict advertising/editorial divide aside, it's hard for a paper to draw a line re: whose ads are morally acceptable and whose aren't. We got a letter last year complaining about our Chipotle ads because "99.9% of your readers boycott McDonalds."

Also: is it more morally questionable to consciously run ads from despicable customers when you have veto power over the ads you run, or to sign up with Google and have all kinds of unwanted crap show up?

Hi Ben, first, I'm surprised I didn't notice it in WW. I usually just notice the ads when they're on the sidewalk, though. And you're right, that's clearly part of the strategy.

So I was wrong? There is pressure on the writers from sales?

I guess the better question for me to ask is, why does the Merc not advertise certain illegal activity, and why does it make an explicit exception for commercial sex trade? Even if one argues that the website is different, why does the website permit advertising from our friend Ms. Harlot but not from our friend Dr. Ephedra?

I'm looking for something other than the slippery slope of having morals.

WW's Hank Stern, via OMI:

For whatever it's worth, our publisher Richard Meeker tells me WW refused the SNUS insert before it then went to the Merc, though one of these got into our paper earlier in the summer due to our inattention.

I'm also reminded that we rejected this insert on the grounds that it litters the landscape and is a public nuisance.

Right. That SNUS insert just "accidentally" fell into their paper.

so... Snus=litter. Comcast & American Spirit = acceptable advertising insert? Interesting.

@ 25 & to Hank via OMI
"....Litters the landscape"

Let me guess, you can grow roses from the Comcast insert in this weeks WW.

WW, don't play dumb you ignorant fucks.

I don't know the details behind our rejection of the SNUS ad, but I do know it's far worse, litter-wise, than the usual Comcast inserts. Just check out a Merc box this week for proof. It's a nasty little bugger.

i don't like ad inserts of any sort, as they tend to end up all over the floors, sidewalks, streets, etc..., but i like these SNUS inserts even less.

as a Merc reader, every time i see a tobacco related ad, i think less of the publisher. tobacco money is blood money. "escort" services, while also advertised are much less objectionable to me than tobacco. i think it's appropriate for a newspaper to say, "no, we don't want your money, and we're not running your ads."

in the case of ads from the tobacco industry, i think the Oregonian, the WW, and the Merc should all say "no." The SNUS ads i feel particularly strongly about because Portland is a test market for this product and if it's "successful" here, thanks to the complicity of the local media rags, then the stuff will start hitting markets all across the country.

The product IS designed to reach a younger demo, around/under 18, and the ad folks/publisher of the Mercury should be (is) smart enough to see this and it would be nice if they were ethical enough to reject the ads.

Litter is a bummer. That's why we send out our distro staff to police and clean up any mess that our inserts make. We invite other papers to do the same when similar situations come up. Want to report a messy box? Please call us at 503-294-0840!

And by "messy box," I mean "messy NEWSPAPER box." Sheesh.

Lisa D.: I wasn't endorsing Stern's words, I just figured it was appropriate to add his comment given that we were already questioning WW.

Oh. I had a question ten comments ago...

"Why does The Merc permit advertising from our friend Ms. Harlot but not from our friend Dr. Ephedra?

"I'm looking for something other than the slippery slope of having morals."

I'll just take this opportunity again to agree that Scott Moore didn't do anything wrong.

Wow, thanks for clearing that up but--hey, how did I get dragged into this?

For the record, I smoke like a forest fire, plus I also drink a lot, listen to loud music, and don't eat all that healthy. Though the advertising dept. is indeed separated from us by an entire floor, I thank them for providing a venue for advertisers who are trying to reach me, their target audience.

Dear James X.

You are a douche-bag.

-ike

Ike, that was a terrible parody. Wm. may be impudent, but he's substantive. You were just base. Sorry, Wm.

Actually, I love the word "impudent" and I'm thinking about getting it on a T-shirt.

James makes it sound like The Mercury is forcing people to smoke.

They are just running advertising -- something that newspapers need to survive.

OK so smoking sucks. Yeah, anyone with half a clue knows this. So do big corporations, alcohol addiction, and Hummers getting 9 miles to the gallon. Should the paper not take advertising from those areas either?

The news side is separate from the ad side, and I grow tired of hearing from people who don't understand that.

God, Pat, how many times do I have to repeat that I don't think Scott did anything wrong, but as Ben so kindly pointed out, it's a pretty tricky proposition to try to give a bad review to a restaurant that advertises in your paper.

And no, tobacco ads don't force people to use tobacco. Kids willingly decide to try a product that's advertised all around them, designed to kill them slowly while robbing them in the process. That's why it's illegal to advertise tobacco to youth, just like it's illegal to advertise your example of "alcohol addiction." ("Drink responsibly!")

As for Hummers, they are not produced for the sole purpose of killing you for your money. "Slippery slope" arguments are a logical fallacy by definition.

I ignore the paper version. I block all ads on the website because my religion prevents me from looking at advertisements. Am I bad?

Changing the subject here slightly but in light of the new proposed cigarette tax, I would like to comment.

First off, I am not an advocate of smoking or other tobacco use. However, I feel it is unfair that we have turned this habit into a moral issue. In other words, if you smoke or chew, you should be punished by being taxed.

Perhaps, we should look to another source of tax revenue from a group of people who also have a bad habit....the obese. Obesity in this country is growing at a rapid rate and if we try hard, could also turn this into a moral issue.

Most of us have been guilty of using sweets or junk food to entice our children to eat all their vegetables, clean their plate, etc. This could be interpreted as coercion and a threat to the health of our citizens.

Just think, many of us have told our children, "Eat your vegetables and I'll give you a cookie." How many people do you know who have said, "Honey, eat all your vegetables and I'll give you a cigarette?" Not many, I'm sure.

I propose putting scales at grocery checkout stands. A shopper approaches with his/her cart, is weighed and height measured and calculations are displayed to the clerk whether this person is overweight and by what percentage. So, if Mrs. Jones is 40% overweight, she would be required to pay a 40% tax on all items deemed "junk food.....ice cream, candy, chips, etc."

I know this sounds outrageous but it's worth putting some thought into.

I was trying to point out, James, that no matter what advertiser you look at, someone, somewhere is going to have a problem with it.

Just because YOU don't like the fact tobacco is advertising in a newspaper that has a younger readership, doesn't mean it's wrong.

You are a smart guy, and know that these days newspapers need to get money wherever they can to stay viable. Otherwise we are going to be reading annoying blogs for our news.

I don't know anything about the Merc's finances, but newspapers in general are highly profitable, with about 20% margin, well more than double what Fortune 500 companies make. That's less than what papers used to make, which is why their stocks are going down, but it's not like the Sulzbergers are on welfare.

You say, "Just because YOU don't like the fact tobacco is advertising in a newspaper that has a younger readership, doesn't mean it's wrong." Which I guess is true, but not the way you mean it. My personal opinion has nothing to do with the matter.

I will say, though, that with the exception of Matt Davis, I think you're the only other one who has come closest to the publisher's real motivations here.

Since everyone here seems to read the Merc online, it looks like we can entirely avoid these in the first place..

I'm sorry. I love the Mercury, and while I hate Big Tobacco, a company has to advertise somewhere. I'm not at all defending Big Tobacco; its good that they don't have the ability to advertise near schools, with cartoons, etc. I'd rather once a week recycle an ad for a stupid product than not get to read my mercury because of lack of revenue.

Plus...its free.

Also... and yes, I should let this go.

You point about profit margins is true. However, with the steady decline of the margins, everyone is wringing their hands over where it's going to bottom out. Which makes finding steady sources of advertising, whether it be porn shops or big tobacco more important to higher ups.

Secondly, if someone is smart enough to read the paper -- and the Mercury -- they are smart enough to know that smoking is bad for you. At least that's my optimistic out look.

Have a good rest of the weekend

Hi, Aaron and Pat. I read the Merc online, too. But I don't know how someone can avoid the ads or choose to read them only when they read the Merc in print unless they don't use sidewalks, given how the inserts are narrow, rounded, super-glossy and heavy so as to fall into the public sphere, sort of like the billboards RJR was banned from.

It looks like you both basically agree on one ultimate justification: the Merc needs the money. I don't know if you mean that if they didn't need the money they shouldn't accept tobacco ads, or if it just means they shouldn't be restricted in how they make money anyway.

Pretty good debate.

Just curious, what is the Merc’s advertising policy? I couldn’t find the policy elsewhere on the website. What is the rule on advertising rejection/acceptance?

I was interested because of James unanswered question about Harlot. Thanks.

Our publisher weighed in back on comment #12 with our ad policy:

"The only ads we don't accept are those promoting obvious illegal activities. I don't make it my business to know the business of those who would like to advertise, I don't judge their business or their personal or professional activities."

I started smoking because I saw Joe Camel riding a chopper in a pool hall inside a yacht. Now look at me! I do my work from a jet ski while smoking!

Hey All ! ! !
Want to spend your vacation to be remembered for long?
Tourism ...
help you carry out your wishes !