More on Obsession
I continue to get comments and e-mails about the Obsession DVD. (Sounds like a perfume ad, doesn't it?) The sustained interest in the DVD interests me. Yesterday, I received an e-mail interview request from a student at Syracuse University who is writing a research paper on the topic. I've attached it, with my responses. She didn't explain why -- perhaps the interest interests her, too.
Dear Mr. John Robinson,
I have read your posts on the topic and was wondering whether you could answer some additional questions for me.
1) In your article "Radical Islam DVD didn't meet standards" you mention that "As a journalist, my default position is to provide people with more knowledge, however, troubling, rather than less." In the same article, you also say, "Were this truly an issue of freedom of information, I would have argued to publish. But this was a paid advertisement presenting one side of an inflammatory issue." I see these two statements in contradiction with one another. So are you saying that an ad and a piece of written news should be treated differently? Just because the ad is troubling, it shouldn't be published but a piece of news that is troubling should? Could you please clarify this difference?
A) Yes, advertising and news are and should be treated differently. We publish advertising that presents what the advertiser wants to present, within reason. The advertiser pays to get its message across in the way they wish. News is presented as factual information that is intended to help readers understand what has happened or what is going to happen and why. Our advertising director and publisher simply didn't see a valid community purpose in distributing it, and, in fact, decided it was divisive, one-sided and troubling. I didn’t see tremendous news value in its content. I didn't think our readers were unaware of the concept that Muslim extremists had targeted this country for destruction.
2) If you were News & Record's advertising director, would you have made the same decision to NOT distribute the DVD?
A) Sorry, I don't know the answer to that. I've never been on the advertising side of the aisle and don't have the experience or knowledge to a make if-it-were-me judgment.
3) What do you think of Kelly McBrides, the head of ethics faculty at Poynter Institute's comment? "Papers generally reject ads only if they promote illegal activity or might incite violence. The 'Obsession' DVD, at most, makes people angry. It's pretty hard to make an argument to reject it. It's hard to articulate a standard that would give you the opportunity to reject something like the 'Obsession' DVD but allow other types of political, religious or anti-religious speech," she said. (denverpost.com -- "Newspapers get complaints for DVD ad on Muslims" by Anick Jesdanun). What do you think of her point of view? Agree? Disagree? Do you have different standards of ethics at News & Records?
A) I think blanket statements like that are interesting but irrelevant. Every market is different with different standards. I have seen advertising and news content in the New York Times -- women in various stages of undress, either in art or fashion ads and stories -- that would not be published in our newspaper. I am not saying the Times is right or wrong in publishing such content -- the editors there know their audience and, I believe, are sensitive to it. We know ours. I think newspapers can reject any type of content if they don't think it fits with community standards.
As a side note, her name is Kelly McBride and the name of our newspaper is the News & Record.
4) Do you think that News & Records would have acted differently if the DVD was about a different racial or religious extremist group? Does the fact that it's about Radical Islam have anything to do with the decision NOT to distribute the ad?
A) No, we would not have made a different decision. In fact, my guess is that many newspapers that did distribute the DVD would have made a different decision had its content been about Jews or Catholics.
5) Many readers thought that they should be allowed to make a decision about the DVD themselves. That they should be allowed to have the choice to watch or not watch the DVD, but that the newspapers shouldn't take that away from them. What do you think of that point of view?
A) I respect that point of view. Readers holding that could have easily viewed it, too, on YouTube. In fact, I received a copy of the DVD in the mail a few weeks after we decided not to distribute it. So, it wasn’t hard to view it if you wanted to.
6) Why do you think so many newspapers distributed the DVD?
A) Many editors explained the reasoning behind the distribution. Their comments can speak for themselves.
7) Why do you think so few newspapers refused the DVD?
A) Again, I can't speak for what other newspapers did or didn’t do.
8) Is there anything else you would like to add regarding the distribution of "Obsession"?
Comments (3)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Send me your Obsession DVDs and other free promotional DVDs and CDs for an environmental art project-- I need thousands. No matter if they're scratched or cracked. Send them to:
Billy Jones
2509 Textile Drive
Greensboro, NC 27405
Please pay the postage, I'll pay for the glue somehow.
Posted on November 12, 2008 3:41 PM
"Our advertising director and publisher simply didn't see a valid purpose in distributing it and decided it was 'divisive ' ". This as opposed to running a feature headline about the great community-unifying, hearsay-alledged Wray "black book".
I guess it's good. Maybe things can change.
Posted on November 13, 2008 10:33 AM
John you could have saved all that typing by simply replying to the student: We didn't carry the DVD because I'm a namby-pamby, politically correct, left- over hippy, liberal douche bag and... it's my paper, not yours! So neh, neh, neh,neh,neh-neh!
ps Sorry about the d.b. thing. It was just for effect.
Posted on November 13, 2008 10:40 AM