We had an interesting call last week in regard to the placement of a news story in The Voice. Apparently, an advertiser received calls due to the fact an article adjacent to it discussed child pornography charges.
From what we were told, people wondered if the business was somehow involved.
Of course it wasn’t.
We have great difficulty how someone could jump to such a conclusion. The ad is clearly bordered separately from the short article.
As with all newspapers, advertising support in The Voice allows us to deliver the news to our readers, along with their advertising messages. Advertisements and the news articles are very separate elements of the package.
Editor Bruce Corcoran has been a journalist for more than 35 years and he said it is the first time he’s heard someone draw such a conclusion that a story and a nearby ad are connected.
The Chatham Voice does periodically run advertorials – advertisements surrounded by promotional written content and photographs that promote the business in question, but it is clearly labelled as an advertisement, is contained in its entirety within a border
We also hope that no one who listens to radio thinks that an advertiser who sponsors a news broadcast is in any way connected to a story that the news anchor reads as well. Or with television, that an advertiser whose 30-second spot appears after a story on a brutal murder is somehow associated with that story.
Because none of that is true. Nor does it make any sense.
***
On a slight tangent, we also received an email from a reader urging us to not use the term “child pornography,” as it implies it is an acceptable form of pornography rather than a form of child abuse.
Perhaps “child sexual abuse” is a better term. We can agree on that. But the fact remains that the Criminal Code of Canada uses the term “child pornography.”
Furthermore, we don’t believe anyone who sees the term “child pornography” thinks of it as acceptable activity. No, people reading that want to see anyone guilty of such acts put in jail.
