(Front paging this because a) it makes a good point, b) it's been responded to by staff from The Merc, and c) it's getting linked by other places such as OR Media Insiders. Congrats, James X--you've created blogosphere buzz! - promoted by torridjoe)
For the last several years, tobacco companies have been targeting youth with ads for chewing tobacco, pointing out how it's easier to hide the use of "chew" from authority figures, how it's cool and glamorous to use it, etc.
In the current issue of The Portland Mercury, an excellent venue for reaching teens and twenty-somethings, is a multi-page guide to using chewing tobacco, courtesy of R.J. Reynolds.
Targeting youth with tobacco ads is illegal, by the way. It even says so in the Master Settlement Agreement R.J. Reynolds signed.
This four-page insert, titled as a "Guide to Snusing," lists glamorous activities and locales where Snus brand chewing tobacco can be used, such as "During your DJ gigs," "While lounging in a non-smoking hotel room," and, quite naturally, "in a rooftop pool overlooking the Hollywood Hills."
Perhaps you could spit your carcinogenic sputum into that rooftop pool overlooking the Hollywood Hills, too.
Many publications reject tobacco ads. That includes publications with illegal-to-advertise-to younger audiences like the Portland Mercury's, as well as publications with minority audiences, which are also specifically targeted by the tobacco industry.
But who else is going to shell out for a four-page glossy insert? Tobacco brings in a lot of money for the Merc.
Do you think it's irresponsible for the Mercury put tobacco ads in its papers? Do you think these massive ad buys create a conflict of interest when the Merc lampoons efforts to raise cigarette taxes? Or do you think it's free speech? Is not taking tobacco money a form of censorship? Take the poll.
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
