Excerpted from the January 27, 1979, issue.
Although the relationship of the First Amendment to commercial advertising is complex, we start with strong presumption against banning advertisers because we disapprove of, or even abhor, their political or social views. But we reserve (and exercise) the right to attack them in our editorial columns.
The Nation does not consider itself bound by standards that must
be applied to just any public forum. Our pages are primarily given over
to articles that are consistent with the views of the editors. While we
also publish articles and letters from readers that diverge from, or
even diametrically contradict, the views of the editors, this is not out
of a sense that our pages should be open to all or because we believe we
are obliged to achieve balance. Whatever we publish appears in the
magazine because in our judgment the views expressed deserve to be
called to the attention of our readers by us. We are a magazine of
limited circulation that enjoys no monopoly on the attention of our
readers. They obtain other views in other places, and, through that
process, determine for themselves what views to accept or reject.
Advertising is different. We accept it not to further the views of
The Nation but to help pay the costs of publishing. We start,
therefore, with the presumption that we will accept advertising even if
the views expressed are repugnant to those of the editors. The only
limits are those that grow out of our interest in assuring that the
advertising does not impede our use of the editorial columns of The
Nation to say what we want. Examples of advertising we might reject
are those where the typography and layout simulate our editorial format
and, thereby, deceive readers; or advertisements that are lurid or
typographically ugly or that distort the appearance of The Nation
by their size, frequency or placement; or that are patently fraudulent,
illegal or libelous in their claims and language. Blatantly misleading
ads, or ads purveying harmful products, will fall into a gray area of
discretion, but as a general principle, we assume that our readers will
have sufficient knowledge to judge for themselves the merits of commonly
known products (such as cigarettes).
In imposing such limits, we will refrain from making judgments based on
our opinions of the particular views expressed in an advertisement. If
the purpose of the advertisement is to sell a product or service rather
than to express a view, we will allow ourselves greater rein in making
judgments about suitability. This reflects our view that commerce is
less sacrosanct than political speech.
When we open our pages to political advertising that may be repugnant to
the editors, we are furthering our editorial commitment to freedom of
speech. Again, our obligation to accept anything in our pages does not
derive from principles that must be applied to a public forum. Nor does
it rise to the level of obligation that should be felt by a newspaper of
general circulation or a television station which either by itself, or
with a few others like it, enjoys a monopoly on communication with the
general public in a particular community. Our obligation is of a lesser,
but still important, order: to use space in which we refrain from
expressing editorial policy in a way that reflects our editorial
commitment to diversity in expression of opinion. (Unlike the New
York Times, we do not limit our editorial opinions to two pages. As
a journal of opinion, we do not face the certain reduction of space
reserved for opinion as does the Times when it sells, in the
words of Robert Sherrill, "advertising space on the inside of its
cranium.") On the contrary, corporate political advertising within the
limits described can only expand The Nation's "cranium" by
enabling us to print many more pages.)
Clearly, the whole question is a matter of drawing fine lines and making
nice distinctions. Ethics and practicality are interwoven throughout the
substance of the issue of how to enable journals of opinion to survive
and expand their reach. We do not pretend that troublesome problems are
absent from this question.
Addendum for Web Advertising
TheNation.com carries display ads sold directly by our staff using the ad policy above however digital ad networks, like Google AdSense, purchase our unsold inventory and auction it to their advertisers. The third party agents who buy remnant space for ads we have not "cleared" are contractually obligated to meet basic guidelines.
We are not able to screen network ads before they appear but if we determine that an ad might meet the criteria specified above for rejection, we review it and make case-by-case judgments whether or not to block it. In gray areas, as with our print policy, we err on the side of inclusion.
