Thursday, October 7, 1999
Dear Netsurfer Folks:
Are you nuts? Why did you run a Playboy banner at the top of an education magazine? Bad choice, folks, very bad choice. But I'd love to hear your answer anyway.
A Parent
Yikes! You're absolutely right.
A placement firm handles advertising for all Netsurfer publications while
our own staff concentrates on the titles' content. The ads - untouched by
human Netsurfer hands - cycle through all of the pages. That means they move
through Netsurfer Digest, Science, Books ... and Education.
For the most part, Netsurfer has no objection to Playboy.com as an
advertiser in its titles other than the Education publication. I've taken a
look at more than one issue over the years, despite the fact that I'm a
woman who finds the photographs and models' profiles more than a little
silly. However, I also think that the magazine's strategies have produced
some of the most revelatory fluff-free interviews of the past 40 years. The
current interview with Gov. Jesse Ventura is a case in point. It may well
change the shape of political alliance in America for the next two
elections, the product of Playboy's pursuit of issues that the mainstream
press has shied away from.
Regardless of its strong editorial content, though, Playboy's image - the
one that it certainly calls on in the banner ad you saw - is built on its
photos.
Although we don't aim for specific audiences (i.e. age groups in this case)
in the other titles, Netsurfer Education will clearly have a large number of
children who subscribe first-hand or who are brought to it by teachers or
parents. In the current configuration, there is no way to block an
advertiser from only one publication. Playboy.com is not an appropriate
advertiser for NSE. We've begun declining the ads immediately.
We apologize and promise to be more vigilant in future.
Judi
K
Thank you for your note regarding "The World and I"
site.
I've exchanged correspondence with Elizabeth Rollins, the Netsurfer
Education writer who reviewed the site. I believe she and I are in complete
accord on this subject: While we recognize your intent, her feelings and
mine are that the review was written well within existing Netsurfer
guidelines.
Elizabeth confirms that when she reviewed the site, she saw that the Rt.
Rev. Moon's holding company owns "The World and I". However, she confirms
also that she read the editorial message and several articles, looking for
an agenda. When she found no evidence of a propaganda motive, she proceeded
to assess the editorial content for quality. Her response to the content,
which she calls well written and utterly interesting, was to subscribe to
the print edition.
Netsurfer writers who have objections to the content of a site are free to
recuse themselves from reviewing it; in fact, I have never second-guessed
any writer who has told me that a site isn't worth reviewing or that the
site's content is objectionable. I *have* asked writers to reconsider their
objections if the only problem they identify is that the site is a
commercial one; sometimes commercial sites are the sole source of
information on obscure subjects.
Elizabeth confirms that "if I felt the publishers had an insidious motive, I
would have excused myself from reviewing the site. If I felt the site was
very good, but pushed the interests of the Moon organization, I would have
mentioned the publishers and their perspective. As it stands, the editors
seem to be functioning autonomously and in compliance with their stated
mission."
Elizabeth goes on to say: "I confess, the Rev. Moon's teachings, as I have
understood them, have bewildered me. But then again, the teachings of Mary
Baker Eddy I find equally bewildering, and I myself was the Los Angeles
correspondent for 'The Christian Science Monitor' (radio network). The
editors did not impose ideological or ontological perspectives with which I
was told to agree. The requirements were that we reporters always, always
attempt to present the most thoughtful, truthful, reasoned perspective, and
that we never bend to special interests or to our own self interest. These
are lofty goals which are almost impossible to achieve."
Is there a bias? Yes, of course, there always is. Consciousness by any
definition we know has a subjective component. In Elizabeth's estimation,
one of the best things about "The World and I" is the acknowledgement of
that reality. For instance, in the magazine's editor's letter, you'll see
the great care he gives to identifying his background and subjective
experience as a white Jewish male.
We hope our readers will be as observant as you have been in identifying the
sources of content, and we certainly encourage them to use critical thinking
skills in determining the value of what they read. In other words: if
something is good, we pass it on - with qualifiers if we see a plain need,
even absent disclosures such as the Unification Church made in the masthead.
Then, readers have to make their own judgements.
Judi and Elizabeth
K
Publisher: Arthur Bebak
Editor: Judith David
Address your letters to
nse-editor@netsurf.com.
Letters and signatures edited for clarity and brevity.