Re: Warning: Media Backlash (was CoS Ad in Fortean Times)

Re: the following posts in the above newsgroups. . .

In article <DADEHz.8y8@uns.bris.ac.uk>, ML. Poulter (plmlp@mail.bris.ac.uk) writes: >In article <3rs58a$9ar@infa.central.susx.ac.uk>,
>Alexander Farran wrote:
>>In the June-July issue (#81) of Fortean Times: The Journal of Strange
>>Phenomena there is a 1/8th page ad for the CoS. I have copied it out below.
>[hack, rend, tear...]
>>I found this very disturbing. The Fortean Times, for those of you who don't
>>know, takes a fairly lighthearted, and slightly sceptical, look at UFOs,
>>Bigfoot, Strange Coincidences, ancient religions etc. FT encourages free
>>thought and discussion. I cannot believe that the editors would knowingly
>>accept an advert for a criminal mind control organisation.
>
>This is indeed very disturbing and I hope the editors will make a
>statement on this (and post it to a.r.s perhaps?)
>
>[schipppp]
>
>>Also contained in issue #81 is an article by Clive Prince, "A writer and
>>researcher on sects, cults and secret societies, ancient and modern." The
>>thrust of this article is "beware of cult-busters."
* The writers refer to earlier posts that never reached me, but the main point deserves an answer about our policy. No one in the ad dept of FT's publisher (John Brown Publishing) had any idea the Celebrity Centre was a recruiting front for the CoS. If they had, they would not have accepted the ad. In a meeting last Monday a policy was adopted of not accepting, in future, recruiting ads from *any* religion or cult or any group that uses mind control methods. Commercial magazines - one of which I suppose we now are - have to fund what they do by sales and taking in advertising. It's a fact of life. At FT, we do not accept that being commercially funded in any way waters down our committment to bringing readers the best Fortean news and discussion we can. That said, it is highly likely that dubious ads will get past the fence from time to time as they have done in the past. The best remedy we can provide is to be open to critical letters from readers with reasoned complaints. We have published letters criticising particular advertisers in the past, and one is being prepared even now for the next issue. If advertisers are happy to continue adverising in a magazine whose readers think their product or service is rubbish, well then - I am inclined to be vigorously mercenary and take their money unless of course the general opinion is that the ad is offensive enough to reject outright. As for Clive Prince's piece on cult-busters... Articles in the Forum section are intended to be provocative, to stimulate thought and reaction. It is a platform open to anyone who cares to reason their case. This was Prince's opinion not ours. To paraphrase our dear friend Mark Chorvinsky, FT no more endorses the opinion of bylined writers than Newsweeks does the genocidal, criminal or off-centre views of the tyrants and celebrities it profiles. Generally we oppose cencorship, preferring to invite reasoned debate. Instead of clucking that we should not have published something, it would be instructive for all to place your criticisms in the public forum too.

PS: thanks to those who sprung to our defence. I would have responded earlier but for a back injury which limits my time at the desk.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Bob Rickard Editor - Fortean Times email bobr@forteana.win-uk.net *"In the topography of intellection, knowledge is ignorance surrounded by laughter." (Charles Fort)* WWW homepage: <a href="http://alpha.mic.dundee.ac.uk/ft/ft.html">http://alpha.mic.dundee.ac.uk/ft/ft.html</a> # Join us in alt.misc.forteana #