Adrian Northrup

Recently, some groups and individuals on campus have expressed anger over the paid insert concerning abortion that ran in the Oct. 2 issue of The Spectator.

As editors of the paper, we feel it is our duty to inform our readers about why we chose to run the advertisement, the process by which it was decided and hopefully “Stop the Madness,” pun intended.

The group responsible for the ad, the Human Life Alliance, contacted The Spectator advertising office in September about placing the advertisement. The insert ran in thousands of college papers across the nation and cost the company about $800 to run in The Spectator.

After the Business Affairs Committee (comprised of advertising, editorial and business staff management as well as our Communication and Journalism faculty adviser) viewed the ad at a meeting a few weeks later, we concluded that the paper would run the ad.

Those who attended the meeting submitted a number of concerns. First and foremost, when we run an advertisement of this nature, The Spectator must make it clear that it is an advertisement and does not reflect the views of the staff. That’s why, when you opened the insert, we included a small yellow piece of paper that said it was a paid advertisement and the views were not necessarily those held by The Spectator.

Second, we wanted to make sure the Human Health Alliance presented its information tastefully and without graphic pictures. We believed that it did and we doubt anyone would say otherwise.

Third, we felt that contacting the opposing side to balance the content would be beneficial for the readers. We contacted the Women’s and Gender Equity Center about doing exactly that, but without specifically telling it what the insert contained. They declined, saying it would be in its best interests to wait until the ad was published to respond.

There are many reasons for running the ad and we stand by our decision to do so.
First, we believe strongly in the First Amendment, specifically the freedom of the press and freedom of speech portions, and felt that not running the insert could violate both.

Ethically, we cannot deny an advertiser space in our publication if it adheres to our guidelines, which it did.

In the interest of balance, perhaps we could have made a more concerted effort to reach out to groups with an abortion-rights point of view.

But if the newspaper were to set that precedent, we would have to call Aldis about responding to a Kerms ad, Brothers to counteract She- Nannigans, etc. Not that these advertisers can exactly compare to abortion, but you get the idea.

Once the decision was made to run the ad, we feel we did the best we could to educate our readers on both sides of this divisive issue.

Some, including a letter to the editor in Thursday’s edition, have suggested the ad was misleading and propaganda, and therefore should not have warranted publication.

To this we would say to our readers that people can interpret ads any number of ways.
In this election season in particular, it should be clear to any consumer of media that ads of this nature should be taken with a grain of salt, knowing that the people behind the ads have an agenda to push.

It is an unfortunate reality that many voters go to the polls misinformed because they are relying solely on advertising.
In a perfect society, people would vote on the issues. But they don’t. It’s all about marketing.

And really, every advertiser in this paper has an agenda and is trying to convince you of something. Toppers wants you to believe that it has the best deals on pizza, not any other place. A Water Street bar wants you to come to its establishment to enjoy its happy hour, because it’s superior to competitors. And so on and so on.

By no means does The Spectator have an agenda in these matters; we merely bring information to our readers. Blame the source, not the medium.

So read the “Stop the Madness” ad and other similar ads with the knowledge of where it’s coming from. Feel free to speak up with something you disagree with and create an open dialogue about a sensitive topic such as abortion.