• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

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