It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Rolling Stone refuses to run ad for Bible Update: Rolling Stone decides to accept Bible ad

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Rolling Stone magazine has refused to run an advertisement for a new translation of the bible. The translation, according to its creators, is aimed at a younger audience. The company wishing to make the advertisement has expressed disappointment in the decision of the magazine. A spokesman for Rolling Stone stated that the company did not publish advertisements bearing religious messages.

 


Update: 1/25/05 Rolling Stone decides to accept Bible ad



GRAND RAPIDS, Michigan (AP) -- Rolling Stone magazine has reversed itself and agreed to accept an advertisement for a new translation of the Bible.

After first rejecting the advertisement, Rolling Stone sent Zondervan a contract for a half-page ad in the rock magazine's February 24 issue, said Doug Lockhart, executive vice president of marketing at the nation's largest Bible publisher.

Reversal



www.cnn.com
GRAND RAPIDS, Michigan (AP) -- -- Rolling Stone magazine declined to run an advertisement for a new translation of the Bible aimed at young people, the nation's largest Bible publisher said Wednesday.

Zondervan, a division of HarperCollins Publishers, bought space in the magazine months ago as part of an ad campaign for Today's New International Version, said Doug Lockhart, Zondervan's executive vice president of marketing.

"Last week, we were surprised and certainly disappointed that Rolling Stone had changed their mind and rejected our ad," he said.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Good for the magazine for taking a principled stand on what they do and do not advertise. I hope that they extend this policy to all such ads however, and consistently apply it across the board. Often the add department at magazines operates independent of the editorial staff, but that seems not to be the case here.


[edit on 1/25/05 by FredT]




posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Would we be so "hooray" for them standing up to their principals if they'd chosen not to run an ad for a product supporting the liberal causes? Seems when a "conservative" organization stands on their own principals the flames and accusastions fly.

Double standards really suck, eh?



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
Would we be so "hooray" for them standing up to their principals if they'd chosen not to run an ad for a product supporting the liberal causes? Seems when a "conservative" organization stands on their own principals the flames and accusastions fly.

Double standards really suck, eh?


Imagine how the left would have been howling if Fox News refused to run ads for MoveOn.org or other liberal groups during the presidential campaign!



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
TV and radio media are required to give = time. They can boycott all or none. Magazines are subscriptions or picked out by the individual so they can or cannot advertise what they want.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
Would we be so "hooray" for them standing up to their principals if they'd chosen not to run an ad for a product supporting the liberal causes? Seems when a "conservative" organization stands on their own principals the flames and accusastions fly.

Double standards really suck, eh?


Umm yeah whatever. It's a private company and according to "Conservative Principals" this company has every right to run whatever ads it wants and to be as biased as it wants. If you're so concerned about it Boycott the magazine.

[edit on 20-1-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Since when has the bible had anything to do with politics (sarcasm)?

But really, are all christians 'conservatives'? Are all conservatives christian?



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
Would we be so "hooray" for them standing up to their principals if they'd chosen not to run an ad for a product supporting the liberal causes?

Its rolling stone fer chris sakes, I don't think they are on any obligation to be unbaised. Besides, the said that they aren't running religious ads of anykind.

djohnston
Imagine how the left would have been howling if Fox News refused to run ads for MoveOn.org or other liberal groups during the presidential campaign!

in case anyone forgot, the bible is not a partisan document, its not a conservative nor a liberal text. The add was not rejected because rolling stone is liberals and the bible is for conservatives.


It's a private company and according to "Conservative Principals" this company has every right to run whatever ads it wants and to be as biased as it wants

Based on actual conservative ideology sure, but not this newish 'religious conservative' ideology of course.

Funny, everyone tosses around the words liberal and conservative, but, as your point illustrates, they're inaccurate. There isn't an actual Liberal Party in the us (i mean liberal as in what the european left is made up of, real liberals.) And simiilarly, many Conservatives in the US are really just borderline religious fundamentalists, not strict constructionists and the like.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Plenty of mentions, references, and ads thinly disguised as articles for Hollywood's latest manufactured belief. No bans on Madonna there.

I'm not a subscriber, so I can'tt go thru archives and see how many articles they've published with opinion pieces lambasting other media outlets for similar positions and actions.

And as for the liberal/conservative tag...how can anyone say the bible does not have political significance? if one political party consistently promotes banning references to it, claiming separation of church and state, while simultanelously promoting Islamic rights to bring religious symbolry into government, civic and public agencies, while the other party defends the Christian holy book to remain where it has been traditionally for over two hundred years, it becomes obvious the bible represents one party much more than the other.


Originally posted by sardion2000

Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
Would we be so "hooray" for them standing up to their principals if they'd chosen not to run an ad for a product supporting the liberal causes? Seems when a "conservative" organization stands on their own principals the flames and accusastions fly.

Double standards really suck, eh?


Umm yeah whatever. It's a private company and according to "Conservative Principals" this company has every right to run whatever ads it wants and to be as biased as it wants. If you're so concerned about it Boycott the magazine.

[edit on 20-1-2005 by sardion2000]




posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   


Based on actual conservative ideology sure, but not this newish 'religious conservative' ideology of course.


Yeah I was talking traditional economic conservative values, not the Evangelical's conservative values, or for that matter the Neo-Conservative values which is putting the USA in a rather deep hole.

Phugedaboudet, let me say this slowly. Rolling Stone is a Private Company and can thus be as lopsided as it wants. End of subject. If you want to voice a complaint, letters@rollingstone.com here is thier email address use it.


And as for the liberal/conservative tag...how can anyone say the bible does not have political significance?

Who cares? Rolling Stone can do whatever they want within reason. If they choose to Endorse one Party over the next thats thier choice. If they want to critizise the administration they can do so, Freedom of Speech and such hmm?




if one political party consistently promotes banning references to it, claiming separation of church and state, while simultanelously promoting Islamic rights to bring religious symbolry into government, civic and public agencies, while the other party defends the Christian holy book to remain where it has been traditionally for over two hundred years, it becomes obvious the bible represents one party much more than the other.


Umm so what are you getting at? Are you saying that Rolling Stone should be forced to carry the ad?



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Not a fan of the magazine but a thumbs up for this decision.......yet another translation of the bible..........geez, as if the message wasn't rampantly misinterpreted enough. *sigh*



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Lest we all forget that ads for moveon.org & PETA were turned down during last year's Superbowl by CBS, while Whitehouse propaganda equating drug abuse to terrorism was allowed to air.

www.moveon.org...
www.alternet.org...

Both CBS & NBC turned down an ad this past December from a liberal church advocating the acceptance of homosexuality.

money.cnn.com...

Fox regularly rejects advertisements for birth control on principle, but Viagra & Cialis are ok. And MTV has previously refused to air ads opposing the war in Iraq, while they will air recruitment spots for the military.

It seems policies to not advocate political agendas via advertising are used inconsistently and as an excuse. It is clear that there is bias and senior management sentiment dictates what the public will see.


df1

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   


There is a magical man in the sky.
He has a list of 10 things he doesn't want you to do.
If you do any of them you will burn in hell for eternity, but he loves you.


Praise "Rolling Stone" and may George forgive any paraphrasing sins I have committed.
.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Good for Rolling Stone magazine.

Can someone answer a question for me?

Why would any religion require advertising?

[edit on 21-1-2005 by Kriz_4]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll..... as the saying goes, hardly good christian material


The bible has no place in the world of mainstream rock/pop where the artistes idolise only themselves



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1


There is a magical man in the sky.
He has a list of 10 things he doesn't want you to do.
If you do any of them you will burn in hell for eternity, but he loves you.


Praise "Rolling Stone" and may George forgive any paraphrasing sins I have committed.
.


Here is the full quote, it's worth it:

"
When it comes to bulls^!t, big-time, major league bulls^!t, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bulls^!t story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bulls^!t story. Holy S^!t!"

A great quote.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I'm just waiting for somebody to accuse them of being satanists again. That or terrorists, or Jews, or Muslims, or Protestants.

Anyhow kudos to the Rolling Stones for doing what they think is right. I'm guessing that we won't be seing the Rolling Stones in a catholic church anytime soon,
.

BTW for reference I'm a protestant.

[edit on 1/21/2005 by cyberdude78]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   


GRAND RAPIDS, Michigan (AP) -- Rolling Stone magazine has reversed itself and agreed to accept an advertisement for a new translation of the Bible.

After first rejecting the advertisement, Rolling Stone sent Zondervan a contract for a half-page ad in the rock magazine's February 24 issue, said Doug Lockhart, executive vice president of marketing at the nation's largest Bible publisher.

Reversal



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Such a shame. But I guess this might have to do with the accusations of them being Satanists years ago. I didn't think that the Bible needed rock bands to advirtise it though.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Well, i guess since its the bible, that they can figure its not supporting any one religion over another necessarily



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join