Ok, I shouldn't be shocked, but--CATO institute ad in the New Republic?

[bunkerbuster1]

I know, I know, the New Republic is a nest of self-loathing DLC dickheads and all that.

But one thing I've been able to count on from that publication is a hard line on Social Security. They've presented as solid a defense on this one as anyone out there.

And yet what greets me on this week's issue (May 23, 2005) on page 15--full page, four color no less?

"The REAL Issues of Social Security Reform: Ownership, Inheritability, Choice."

Mein fucking Gott...have they no shame? None?

[tx_dem41]

1. I thought ads were separate from Editorial? n/t

[bunkerbuster1]

3. well, I've seen wacky stuff in TNR before

including regular ads from some NJ wackjob promoting "Zero Population Growth", but presumably the publisher can nix any truly offensive ads.

CATO promoting SS "reform" in the New Republic isn't quite like the KKK doing banner ads on the NAACP website, but it's not that far off.

[tx_dem41]

6. I guess I see a bigger difference in "offensiveness" between the

...two examples (SS and KKK). I'm not afraid of rational political debate (especially on SS). My beliefs are strong enough to handle debate.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. TNR has gone over to the Dark Side.

They hardly even pretend to be liberal any more.

[bunkerbuster1]

4. they advertise on AAR.

I know, so do stiffy-pill and hypnotize-away-your-alcoholism charlatans, but still.

[SteppingRazor]

5. But it's an ad...

There is a complete wall between advertising and editorial at ANY media outlet worth anything. Editorial has ZERO control over what gets printed in ads. Unfortunately, advertising does often have some control over editorial in less-ethical publications. An example is the old joke that you'll never see a story on General Electric on NBC News.

[Cleita]

7. Publications make strange bedfellows when it comes to

advertising revenue. They make more money off ads than subscriptions, so go figure that one out.