Queerty is better as a member

Login | Register
 

NYT Knowingly Accepting Ad Dollars From Lying AIDS Org

Despite being made aware that The Center for AIDS Prevention is publishing false and misleading facts and statistics about HIV and AIDS, the New York Times says it will not remove the organization’s advertising from the newspaper’s website. “”Should there be allegations of fraud against an advertiser, we would discontinue advertising, until the matter is resolved. At this time, we have no indication of that,” says Times director of advertising acceptability Steph Jespersen. Good for a NEWSPAPER that claims to have the BEST JOURNALISM IN THE WORLD for wanting to take any precaution against misleading its readership about public health should it get in the way of their bottom line. Nevermind that the Times‘ own ad guidelines ban “fraudulent, deceitful and misleading statements.” [ProPublica]

What do you think of this post?
LOL (0) WTF (0) Hot (0) More Please (0)
By:           editor editor
On:           Mar 27, 2009
Tagged: , , , , , ,
6 Comments

No. 1 · hardmannyc · Member · 1071 comments

I don’t believe in censoring anyone, including advertisers.

Posted: Mar 27, 2009 at 11:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]
No. 2 · Bokeh

Aids charities seem to be accepting our dollars just fine:
http://www.towleroad.com/

Posted: Mar 27, 2009 at 11:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]
No. 3 · JamesR

A newspaper MUST “censor” advertisers. Would the LA Times print an ad that said “Best snake oil in the world, so slick you could fuck your mother with it?” No. This shit is even slicker than that. I can’t believe the LA Times is not pulling their ad. A crackwhore would have better standards – as ALL whores have some standards. Precisely WHAT is the LA Times worried about? That the bankrupt executive of a “charity” without any money is going to sue them? Seriously – going to that site, even superficially you can tell it’s BOGUS. They do not seem affiliated with Scientology, what is there to fear? Somebody somewhere is either blowing someone of importance or they are so incompetent and braindead and desperate for cash at the Times they are beyond all hope. I fear it’s the latter. Not even worth the tar.

Every cent that “charity” gets as a result of folks being duped because of the Times pissing away their good name is a cent not going to folks who do real good. Or at least do something. While perhaps not “illegal” it is a moral crime of the highest order for the Times to falsely claim neutrality and abet this.

Posted: Mar 27, 2009 at 3:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]
No. 4 · JamesR

- Sorry – can’t edit – I thought I had read elsewhere an ad was in the LA Times. My bad. They are having bad times, (badpun,) made sense. The NYTimes, even in it’s web form, is just ten zillion times worse. And USA Today is blithely running them. What the fuck is up?

Posted: Mar 27, 2009 at 3:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]
No. 5 · jason

HIV doesn’t even cause AIDS. It’s simply a marker virus. The proof is that people have survived 25 years or more with HIV in them. Those who have died of AIDS have done so partly because of the depressed immunity associated with drug use, poor hygiene, lack of sleep, crystal meth consumption, and an overall poor lifestyle.

Posted: Mar 27, 2009 at 9:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]
No. 6 · JamesR

@ Jason – I am taking a wild guess that you just made a bad attempt at ironic humor (and /) or you don’t have that “marker virus” yourself, do you?

Posted: Mar 28, 2009 at 12:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment · [Flag?]

Add your Comment




It's easier to add your comments when you are a member. Register or log in!


Post comments that are relevant to the article, written in clear language and that avoid personal attacks on bloggers and your fellow commenters. And take a moment to read the Queerty Comment Policy.



POPULAR ON QUEERTY

Copyright 2012 Queerty, Inc.
Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.