Roanoke Newspaper Bans Gun Ads-NRA Pounces

Status
Not open for further replies.

News Shooter

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
446
Location
Moonbat Central, MA
Recoil: 'Roanoke Times' Gun Ad Restriction Angers NRA

By Joe Strupp

Published: November 01, 2007 2:10 PM ET

NEW YORK A new policy at The Roanoke (Va.) Times limiting gun ads to licensed dealers has apparently drawn anger from the National Rifle Association, according to a Times Web item.

Bill Cochran writes on his Times’ “Field Reports” blog that “The National Rifle Association is telling its members, and anyone else who will listen, that The Roanoke Times ‘is once again up to its anti-gun antics.’

“The NRA and other pro-gun advocates are angry that the newspaper has tightened its policy on firearms advertising and will accept gun and accessory ads from licensed firearm’s dealers only,” he adds.

Cochran pointed out that the new policy resulted in “no ads for last weekend’s popular Roanoke Valley Gun Show held in the Roanoke Civic Center. While most guns sold at such shows involve federally licensed dealers and background checks, there are some personal collection deals between individuals apart from licensed dealers. These escape background checks.”

“Our tightening policy ensures that firearms advertising in our newspaper is restricted to licensed dealers who are subject to these background checks,” he quoted Nan Mahone, the newspaper’s marketing director, saying.

The NRA, he adds, called the policy “blatantly discriminatory” and urged its members and pro-gun citizens to contact the newspaper “to express their outrage.”

He said the NRA did not call for canceling subscription, but “Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, did just that, giving instructions on how to do it online. He urged the league’s Web site readers to tie up the newspaper’s phone lines and email system ‘until they realize that there will be a stiff price to pay for attacking the people and businesses they are supposed to be serving.’”

A newspaper statement on the policy says: “The decision to restrict firearms advertising to licensed dealers was made by the advertising department, with the support of the president and publisher and independent of the news and editorial departments. It was made after careful examination of a loophole in a federal law and consideration of the safety of our community.”

The new policy comes months after the paper “got in hot water with pro-gun advocates…when it published a list of 135,000 Virginians who had earned Right-to-Carry Permits. The list later was pulled.”


Joe Strupp
 
Last edited:
Car ads from licensed dealers only.
Yep. Better close that "car show loophole." :rolleyes:

has apparently drawn anger from the National Rifle Association
More like "ridicule."

“Our tightening policy ensures that firearms advertising in our newspaper is restricted to licensed dealers who are subject to these background checks,” he quoted Nan Mahone, the newspaper’s marketing director, saying.
Ah, the sacred background check. :rolleyes:
 
Not just cars, how about no ads for anything except from licensed retail dealers?

Any competing papers in the area?
 
Any competing papers in the area?

No.
Martinsville has a little paper, and Danville, but Roanoke Times is the only one. Unless you go for USA Today or WSJ.
 
They are free to accept ads and payment or decline same from anybody they want. If they don't want the revenue from running private sale ads, that's their business decision
Whats your point?

I don't see anyone calling for laws requiring them to run the gun ads, all I see is private citizens being called to give feedback to an anti gun business to show them that being anti gun is not in their best interest ... sound downright neighborly if you ask me.
 
What if they had a policy refusing ads from adult book stores, gay bars, strip clubs, or "escort services?" Would you all be this righteously indignant? Newspapers and magazines make their money through advertisement sales. This particular publisher has decided to decline the private firearms sales revenue stream. There's no fairness or unfairness to complain about. You can call them or write to them to express your displeasure, but unless you are one of their major advertisers or otherwise actually have the power to harm their bottom line, they'll blithely ignore you. Remember: their revenue comes from primarily ad sales, not so much newstand sales or subscriptions. You cancelling a subscription or threatening to never buy another issue will bother them not one iota.
 
This is the same paper that published ALL the names of Virginia's CCW holders(including mine) a while back. So they have a record of being anti-gun.
 
The Indianapolis Star has had a similar policy for a long time. No ads unless you are a FFL or curio and relic.
 
What if they had a policy refusing ads from adult book stores, gay bars, strip clubs, or "escort services?" Would you all be this righteously indignant?
This is The High Road, not a forum for owners of adult book stores, gay bars, strip clubs or "escort services" ... we're a GUN RIGHTS FORUM.

Again, I don't understand your point ... are you suggesting we just shut up?
 
I'm suggesting that you understand there are rights beyond firearms rights. That includes the right of this publisher to accept ads from whomever he sees fit. Don't like his decision? Don't read the paper. "Fairness" is not an issue here. Why do you want to tell the publisher how he should run his business?
 
While it is true that the bulk of a newspaper's revenue comes from advertisers who pay to place ads, it is also true that those ad rates are based in large part on circulation, or the number of papers sold. If the circulation were to drop by 10 or 20 or more percent, then ad rates would have to be reduced. Major advertisers would not pay the same rate for far less coverage.

So, an individual rallying a large enough group of people to cancel subscriptions, or write to the paper telling them they won't buy anymore, should give the paper reason to examine it's policy.

As well, that same large group of people could be asked to contact the paper's advertisers directly, informing them that their products or services will be boycotted and the reasons for that boycott. That may cause those advertisers to completely pull their ads, and the resulting revenue to the paper, completely.

Just because a paper has the right to make it's own decisions, does not mean that those people the paper serves have to sit idly by and accept those decisions without comment or reaction. In a free society, those folks can, and should, make an effort to try to peacefully change those policies with which they disagree. That principle applies to all businesses selling a product or service to anyone.

In short, take care of your customers, and your customers will take care of you. That's a sound business plan.

Rob
 
I'm suggesting that you understand there are rights beyond firearms rights. That includes the right of this publisher to accept ads from whomever he sees fit. Don't like it his decision? Don't read the paper. "Fairness" is not an issue here. Why do you want to tell the publisher how he should run his business?
Because the Publisher by his actions is telling gun owners how to run their lives. He is making what is effectively a judgement concerning gun owners.

Gun owners have as much right to judge the publisher and tell him how to run his business as he does to judge gun owners and tell them how to run their lives.

And there's no if about him doing just that, telling gun owners how to run their lives. He doesn't want them buying guns face to face and he's doing what he has every right to do by refusing ads.

But lets just keep it simple here by saying What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
 
Because the Publisher by his actions is telling gun owners how to run their lives. He is making what is effectively a judgement concerning gun owners

He has declined ads for private sales. Are ads in his newspaper the sole venue for such sales? Further, it is his right to make such a judgement.
 
It's their right to do it as a private enterprise. They can accept and decline ads from who they want, as annoying as it might be.

However, the paper itself is unapologetically leftist and is heavily biased in it's coverage. They are pretty much a mouthpiece for the Democratic party, particularly when it comes to local or state politics.
 
...which is an example of freedom of the press in action.
None of which precludes gun owners from taking action that causes a loss of revenue to the paper in question.

I'll say it again:

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

If the paper can be activist against gun owners then it is reasonable that gun owners can be activist against the paper.
 
If the paper can be activist against gun owners then it is reasonable that gun owners can be activist against the paper.

You are free to do so, of course. Just so we understand that is really about conflicting political viewpoints and not some asinine idea of what is "fair."
 
Remember: their revenue comes from primarily ad sales, not so much newstand sales or subscriptions. You cancelling a subscription or threatening to never buy another issue will bother them not one iota.
The rates a newspaper can charge for ads, as well as the number of advertisers, depends directly and heavily on circulation (number of readers and subscribers) and the demographics of the circulation.
 
Cancelling your subscription is one thing, going after current advertisers might yield more results.
 
The rates a newspaper can charge for ads, as well as the number of advertisers, depends directly and heavily on circulation (number of readers and subscribers) and the demographics of the circulation.

Yes, it does. If this paper really is
unapologetically leftist and is heavily biased in it's coverage. They are pretty much a mouthpiece for the Democratic party, particularly when it comes to local or state politics.

Then their target demographic is likely also leftist and Democratic. If that is the case, you'll have a tough row to hoe getting them on your side to cancel subscriptions and reduce circulation to the point where advertising revenues drop.

Contacting the advertisers directly might yield better results or it might not. They, likewise, will only do what you want them to do if you credibly could reduce their profits. IOW, organize a boycott. "I will never buy your product again" has much less impact than "We will never buy product again."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top