Rolling Stone Bans Bible Ad Aimed At Reaching Young People

[Amelia]

Rolling Stone Bans Bible Ad Aimed At Reaching Young People

By Jimmy Moore

January 21, 2005

NEW YORK -- Rock music magazine Rolling Stone rejected an ad on Wednesday for a new Bible translation designed to reach "spiritually intrigued 18- to 34-year-olds" because it was deemed too religious.

Zondervan, the largest Bible publisher in the United States, was hoping to purchase space in the popular secular magazine to attract their target consumers for the new "Today's New International Version of the Bible," which is due to hit bookstores in February.

Doug Lockhart, who serves as the executive vice president of marketing for Zondervan, said he purchased the ad in Rolling Stone last July in preparation for the campaign to promote this new Bible.

"We were surprised and certainly disappointed that Rolling Stone had changed their mind and rejected our ad," Lockhart told the Associated Press.

Kent Brownridge, the general manager for Rolling Stone's parent company Wenner Media, said the Zondervan ad "doesn't quite feel right in the magazine."

"The copy is a little more than an ad for the Bible," Brownridge explained to USA Today.

He added, "It's a religious message that I personally don't disagree with."

But he said since there is "a spiritual message in the text," the ad would not be allowed to appear in Rolling Stone, because "we are not in the business of publishing advertising for religious messages."

"It's hard to have a policy that covers every conceivable product," Brownridge continued to USA Today when asked why the magazine granted Zondervan permission to advertise.

Talon News was unable to find any policy against "religious messages" on the Rolling Stone web site on Thursday.

Lockhart said he offered to change the ad, but Rolling Stone would not permit him to do so and refused to provide any written policy banning religious messages from appearing in Rolling Stone ads.

Lockhart said the ad does not even mention the name of God and features a young male looking intently at a Bible.

"In a world of almost endless media noise and political spin, you wonder where you can find real truth," the ad reads. "Well, now there's a source that's accurate, clear and reliable. It's the TNIV - Today's New International Version of the Bible. It's written in today's language, for today's times - and it makes more sense than ever."

Despite Rolling Stone's rejection of this ad, Lockhart said it will be featured in other media formats, including Modern Bride magazine, The Onion, MTV.com, VH-1 and America Online.

Zondervan is still disappointed their ad will not be featured in Rolling Stone as part of its $1 million blitz to reach an audience that is not accustomed to seeing an ad for a Bible.

"Our mission is more people engaging the Bible more, and Rolling Stone was a perfect fit for the group we want to reach," Lockhart explained to USA Today. "This rejection underscores the challenge we face."

Lockhart states Zondervan will not pursue any legal action against Rolling Stone for rejecting their ad and is still hopeful they will reconsider their decision.

"We were excited about it," Lockhart told Christian Retailing magazine. "We were surprised and disappointed when they changed their mind last week."

The TNIV is the first update of the New International Version, the world's bestselling English translation of the Bible, since 1978. The new language and interpretation is meant to appeal better to the younger generation of Bible readers.

[cricket]

I, for one, certainly hope there is a big stink over this one. It makes no sense to me that so many people will support the government's ruling that religious entities are required by law to hire homosexuals, and a the same time think that banning a Biblical ad in a non-biblical magazine is acceptable.

It's got to be one way or another folks.

[Pockey]

Hrm...I want to check out TNIV.

[Bravus]

Cassie (my older daughter) received a Bible paraphrase called 'The Word on the Street' from one of her Christian friends because she'd been saying she was having trouble reading the Bible. She enjoyed that one very much, and basically read it from cover to cover. She knows it's not the Bible in any proof-texty sense, but is a way of getting into God's Word that is accessible to her, and has learned a lot from it.

I liked 'The Message' when it first came out, but now can barely stand to hear it - it just seems so warm and kind of smarmy and psychobabblish to me. I'm sure others get a blessing from it, but it's got the the point where it's just really uncomfortable for me to read. For reading I still enjoy the NIV, and for study I tend to go back to the KJV, with comparisons with a number of versions if something is tough.

I think Rolling Stone probably made a mistake, but in the final analysis it's their magazine and they get to choose what to advertise in it... And the new version will get plenty of coverage in other venues.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "It makes no sense to me that so many people will support the government's ruling that religious entities are required by law to hire homosexuals, and a the same time think that banning a Biblical ad in a non-biblical magazine is acceptable."

1) In the U.S. it is churches/people that have Constitutionally mandated freedoms. It is not their spin-off organizations.

2) The word "entity" is defined as something that exists independently of, and NOT related to, something else. An example of this, I suppose, might be a company that manufactured redwood lawn furniture. It could be owned by a denomination, yet the process of manufacturing lawn furniture could be considered to be unrelated to (and independent of) the religious function of the denomination that owned the company.

3) Within the context of # 2, above, why should that company claim freedom from the employment laws of the State? What reason would exist for that company to claim that it should be allowed to pay women less than men, for the same job, simply because it was owned by a denomination, if the laws of the state prohibited that? Why should that company claim religious freedom to refuse to hire homosexuals, if the laws of the State prohibited such?

4) Folks, there is no reason assoicated with a religious purpose that would lead a denomination to manufacture lawn furniture, outside of the profit motive. A denomination that decides to do so should be required to abide by the labor laws of the State in which it is located.

NOTE: As most of you probably know, the SDA Chruch once owned a company that manufactured redwood lawn furniture.

Now we get to the issue as to whether or not a newspaper such as ROLLING STONE should be allowed to pick and chose its advertisers.

Frankly, I do not have a fully formed opinion on that subject. But, I lean to the position that they should be allowed to do so. The U. S. Constitution has a provision for Freedom of the Press, and for Freedom of Expression. I think (?) that both may be involved here. Let me illustrate:

a) Let us say that I am wealthy ( <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />) and I am committed to the proposition that it should be against the law to make clothing out of animal fur. So, I found, fund, and establish a weekly magazine that advocates such a position. Should the law require me to accept a advertisement from a local store that sells coats made out of animal fur? Follks, this a a freedom of expression issue.

On another point, let us say that I am wealthy (<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />) and the sole owner of a local daily newspaper. I have certain ethical/moral values in regard to prostitution, and the use of beverage alcolol. Should I be required to accept adversising in my newspaper that comes from a Nevada brothel, and an alcololic beverage company? Folks, this is a Freedom of the Press issue.

c) Should James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, be required to accept Rolling Stone advertising in his publications? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon_smile_sick.gif" alt="" /> If Rolling Stone were to attempt to place such an advertisment, just about all of you would support Dr. Dobson's refusal to accept such.

[NOTE: Focus on the Family has publications that do not carry an explicit denominational message.]

Think about it folks.

[cricket]

All right. I can accept the notion that "religious entity" could be something other than a church. In my mind, I pictured a church operation: hiring a secretary to assist the Pastor, or Priest, or whomever, for example.

When I said that it made no sense, I felt it was completely fair for the magazine to refuse publication. I also feel it is completely fair for a church to choose to not hire a homosexual (or a person whose religious beliefs do not match their own) if they so choose.

[Amelia]

Churches spar with media over advertising

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0124/p11s01-lire.html

[Amelia]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Hrm...I want to check out TNIV.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

http://www.tniv.info/

[Gregory Matthews]

Christine:

I agree that a Chruch should be able to hire whom they chose to hire as their Scty.

But, a denomination that owns a factory that manufactures redwood lawn furniture should not be able to do so.

NOTE: Most of you know that the SDA Chruch once owned a factory that made redwood lawn furniture. I do not imply that such discrimination was ever practiced at that plant.

[Amelia]

Churches decry commercial censorship

By Donna De Marco

January 30, 2005

The ongoing controversy between the media and religion heated up this month with Rolling Stone's initial rejection of an ad for a new version of the Bible.

The decision was reversed, and the ad will run next month, but religion-based advertising is becoming an increasingly heated issue as morals and ethics move to the forefront of the political debate.

http://www.christian-underground.com/archive/print.php?sid=516

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Kent Brownridge, the general manager for Rolling Stone's parent company Wenner Media, said the Zondervan ad "doesn't quite feel right in the magazine."

---

Nooooo???? He's kidding, right?

It’s kind of like going into a porn shop and finding Bibles next to the porn mags....

Hey, that's an idea...Bible ads in a porn mag!