Equal Time?
July 2, 2007 at 2:23 pm by David WarnerAnyone else notice the ad in Sunday’s St. Petersburg Times from Ron Sanders, pastor of Largo’s Lighthouse Baptist Church? Don’t know how you could have missed it, especially if you were reading the coverage of the St. Pete Pride parade. In the Tampa edition, the ad ran on the story’s jump page; in St. Pete, directly across from it. The good reverend suggested in his missive that God sent Katrina to New Orleans to punish the city’s tolerance for gays, and that St. Pete is in for a similar disaster. Further, he suggested that gays are courting destruction: “There will come a day when they will answer to God for this… PAYDAY, SOMEDAY!” I have to assume that, if the Klan were to submit a racist threat to run on the same page as coverage of the next MLK parade, the Times would reject the submission. So can someone explain why this ad is any more acceptable?
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Ohhhhhhhhh come on! If God was punishing a town for it’s tolerance of gays, Key West would be nothing but a coral reef by now. God was punishing New Orleans because of the engineers! It was the engineers that let people build a city that is below sea level. It’s the engineers we should fear.
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I’ll refrain from making a joke about a mudslide covering San Francisco, LA sliding into a huge crack, or Provincetown getting blown away by a Nor’easter. Its a shame that such intolerance is widely acceptable and the good pastor spent church money on a full page ad to preach hate. Any idea on how many God-fearing true believers were devastated by Katrina. I’d suspect exponentially more Protestants lost quite a bit more than the homosexuals(most of them had the means to leave I’m sure) from New Orleans. I guess the damage was was limited simply to the city too, just ignore the people living in the rest of Louisiana and neighboring Mississippi and Alabama (ahem can we say Bible Belt?) Weren’t casinos some of the first major businesses back open after the storm? Isn’t gambling sinful? It’s sad that the good reverend spent church funds to purchase an advertisement to preach intolerance. Even sadder I’m sure he will find an audience for his rhetoric. A hypocrite like him is ultimately more damaging to true family values, morality, and exemplifying the teachings of Christ than being gay could ever be.
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:48 am
I agree that it was in bad taste to run that ad next to that story, or even to run that ad at all. What I don’t understand is the comparision to the KKK and black Americans. The comparison doesn’t make sense. The KKK is America’s own homegrown terrorist organization and for year’s there targets have been black Americans. Blacks have suffered violent attacks at the hands of this group, so compare the outlandish comments of a preacher to threats against blacks by the KKK seems stupid.
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:50 am
And, actually it was the engineers that built faulty levees that collapsed and destroyed New Orleans.. The whole sea level argument is stupid. If we only built cities in area’s that were not prone to natural disasters large portions of the West Coast and Midwest would have to be abandoned, not to mention the great state of Florida.
July 3rd, 2007 at 11:31 am
the point is none of the above, but how a newspaper that positions itself as a sort of model for the industry allowed this hate ad in the paper. the inside controls slipped somewhere at the sptimes. now that this is on romenesko, maybe the sptimes will be embarrassed into responding. though i doubt it. they seldom, if ever, acknowledge their screwups.
July 3rd, 2007 at 11:47 am
I don’t think that true Christians would assault someone for being gay, but the church is the primary purveyor of hate and discrimination against gay people these days. That said, the Klan is certainly worse, since it was formed specifically to mete out vigilante justice.
It all stinks, and not all gay people have “means,” by the way, but the real issue here is that the St. Pete times made a big community relations blunder in accepting this church’s ad.
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Because, for some awful reason, noone stands up for gays in the way everyone stands up for blacks. We noted that at the time of the Michael Richards incident. had he called those people faggots, would his career have been ruined? No way.
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Two points:
1. Last time I looked, the very best newspapers served as, among other things, a marketplace of ideas, even odious ones. Did the ad threaten to do physical violence to anyone? Threaten to break any laws? Incite anyone to illegal action? Perepetrate consumer fraud? Doesn’t sound like it, although I haven’t seen the ad and am relying on what’s quoted above. I say, let the ad run and let the sanitizing effects of sunshine and dialog expose it for what it is — poorly reasoned and hateful. Gay people certainly do not need the likes of the St. Petersburg Times, or any other paper, protecting them from offensive speech, particularly rhetoric that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. We’re grownups; we can handle it.
2. The act of running an ad doesn’t give legitimacy to its content. I don’t think any newspaper should be in the position of trying to arbitrate which advertising “opinions” are acceptable — that’s a dangerous slippery slope. This situation has come up at other newspapers, and some of them have dealt with it by accepting the ad in question and running an editorial explaining why they accepted it and why they disagree with it. St. Pete might consider doing the same.
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Jill,
I didn’t mean to imply that, hence the use of most. I suspect that, proportionally, the percentage of gay folks with the means to leave was greater than the percentage of churchgoing folks in the city limits. My point was if God had been targeting gays, it was like using an ICBM to kill a mouse. It’s absurd hate speech with no logical foundation. I agree, the editors at the Times were asleep at the wheel on this one if the blunder was unintentional. The alternative is even scarier.
July 3rd, 2007 at 1:08 pm
It’s an ad. BFD.
I might want to buy an ad in the Leningrad* Times telling people Republicans are the Spawn of Satan, with pithy bible quote to prove it.
Should they turn down this ad?
What if I want to start a nudist club and buy ads for it? I’m sure the Babtists would not be happy about that one. Should [insert newspaper name here] run it or turn it down?
What about an ad for a church that advertises itself as “gay-friendly” or “inclusive,” which would surely piss off some of the self-appointed God’s Own People around here.
Not that I’d buy such an ad, anyway. Craiglist is free, and putting up your own website costs less per year than a single little display ad in the local newsprinters.
Robin ‘Roblimo’ Miller
Bradentucky, Fleriduh
* I get confused… when I was a kid it was called “Leningrad,” but now most people seem to call it “St. Petersburg” same as back in Tsarist days. Except now, with Putin in power, I expect to see the signs (and Wikipedia entry) call it “Leningrad” again any day now. So I’ll just keep calling both the real one in Roosha and the Fleriduh knockoff version “Leningrad” until I see official statements from the Putin and Crist administrations one way or the other that say what we’re supposed to call the place(s).
July 3rd, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Is St. Pete hurting so bad, it will run an Ad that promotes hate. While their at it let’s hit all the other groups, muslims, African Americans, women. Becuase it’s ok to hate, right….. Especillay when ad dollars are at stake. My question is who the heck was asleep at the wheel?
July 3rd, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Roblimo — word is it will be renamed “Putingrad” after his handpicked successor wins the next election.
July 3rd, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Maybe I’ve been out of the newspaper business for too long, but can someone tell me if it’s common practice for an advertiser to specify what stories their ads will run next to?
In my day (only about eight years ago) advertisers could request a section or a page, but not what story it will run next to.
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:06 pm
“So can someone explain why this ad is any more acceptable?”
Well … the KKK killed black folks by hanging them.
This church is only expressing its views (repugnant as they may be to you) and not calling for violence against anyone. Last time I checked, right next to freedom of the press, was something about free speech.
Does that answer your question?
Now here’s one for you:
Why are you so overweight? Did you know that one of the 7 deadly sins is sloth?
Do you even know how to define sloth?
I for one don’t relish the thought of having to pay the taxes that will be required to support you in your soon-to-be infirmity due to your excessive consumption of both double-bacon cheeseburgers with sides of cigars, which cause cancer.
So, please sir, go on a diet and quit smoking.
Asshat.
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:39 pm
The French Quarter, the primary New Orleans “gayborhood” where Southern Decadence (not Pride) was to be held that year, did not flood and was left almost completely unscathed by Katrina. Is the good reverend suggesting that God has bad aim?
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:18 pm
OK heresyouranswer, I concede that I’m overweight and have indeed consumed a double bacon cheeseburger or two, but I’ve never successfully smoked a cigar in my life. You may be confusing me with Wayne Garcia, who’s on a killer diet which no one in my office envies (I don’t know whether he’s still hitting the cigars or not).
And as for the church’s ad not calling for violence, that’s crap. That’s exactly what that ad is promising. And if the church is not urging a specific act, it’s encouraging a climate in which all manner of gay-bashing can be excused, including murder.
But it’s not even the content of the ad so much as its placement that raised a question for me. Newspapers have the latitude to decide whether to accept an ad, and where that ad will be placed. Slapping this on the same page as gay pride parade coverage smacks, at best, of a perverse need to appear “balanced,” or, at worst, of greed — granting premium placement at a premium price to an ad that is, face it, promoting hate.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I refuse to quit smoking.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:25 pm
And that’s MISTER asshat to you, bub.
July 3rd, 2007 at 8:32 pm
I would like to know if the SPT would have run an ad with an advocation of homosexuality, a gay event, or better yet a slam on christianity across from a story about a religous event? Although, “the gays” are savy enough marketeers and wouldn’t likely waste their advertising budget preaching to that choir. Wait a minute, those sheep might follow….bahhhhhhh.
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
newspapers have been rejecting ads since time immemorial for all sorts of less insidious reasons than that one promotes hate. so for the sptimes, which obviously tilts liberal on its ed page, to have allowed this one in is puzzling.
the public is little aware, as shown by many of these naive comments, just how heavy handed newspapers can be in allowing which ads to run in their papers. these are profit businesses, and many calculations enter into what runs and what doesnt. i dont think free speech enters into it, which may surprise some.
July 4th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Of course free speech doesn’t enter into it. The First Amendment only protects speech against GOVERNMENT censorship. dreaming is right: newspapers are private enterprises and can refuse ads at will, without giving a reason. But they typically don’t because they want the money and they don’t want the publicity such a move might create. An ad usually comes under scrutiny for reasons of libel or violation of some law like Fair Housing or Equal Opportunity employment, but odiousness of opinion is by itself usually an insufficient reason for most newspapers to pull it. In my experience the decision not to run an ad is very rare unless it’s blatantly in violation of the law or the paper’s stated advertising policy (no ads for tobacco, for example, or no nudity).
As for positioning, I’m going to guess that was purely coincidental. At most newspapers, ads are placed on pages long before stories are, and newsroom layout people typically don’t have much idea ahead of time of the content of the ads — all they see is the space blocked off. The advertiser was probably smart enough to ask for a premium position in the local news section, which pretty much guaranteed that the ad would run near the main local story, but I don’t think that was in any way a conscious decision in the newsroom or the ad department of the paper.
July 5th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
‘not all gay people have “means [to leave],†by the way’: Sure they do. The men have above-average incomes, and the women have U-Hauls…
July 6th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Wow. I thought the St. Pete Times was a paper “with the times…” Absolutely unacceptable to run that advertisement. Advertisements like these are just as hateful and potentially deadly as anything the Nazi party or KKK could cook up against any minority or majority (women). I speak from many unfortunate experiences.
July 8th, 2007 at 8:54 am
The issue is the placement of the ad, which is obnoxious and deeply offensive. An apology and acknowledgement that it was indeed an error is the least that should be forthcoming.
July 21st, 2007 at 4:06 am
This is ridiculous. I have contacted the times and plan on getting action taken.