On Thursday, a paid advertisement titled “The Palestinians’ Case Against Israel is Based on a Genocidal Lie” was printed on page seven of The California Aggie. As editor in chief of The Aggie, a part of my job is to act as the final filter of all advertisements. Put simply, if I deem an ad to be unprintable, it will not be published.
About a week ago, David Horowitz’s ad was sent to me for approval, and I allowed it to go to print. As a direct result of my decision, people on this campus – our campus – felt racially discriminated against, and for that I sincerely apologize.
In response to the ad, a group organized a protest on Friday afternoon. They gathered on the quad and marched down to The Aggie newsroom. I spoke with about 10 people for over two hours. During the discussion, I was convinced that the ad is indeed racist.
As a result, The Aggie will update its advertising guidelines. An existing policy barring racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic or otherwise discriminatory written content from running will be extended to the advertising department.
During my tenure as editor, I’ve dealt with a bevy of controversial issues. Each of these issues had a person or a group of people demanding retribution. It is generally the policy of The Aggie to not succumb to protestors because we carefully make decisions that are intended to inform and promote discourse.
This is the first time that I feel compelled to publicly acknowledge a mistake, not because people protested and not to appease readers or advertisers, but because the situation truly merits it.
We at The Aggie take our job very seriously. As a result, we sometimes act as journalists to a fault, regardless of the consequences. However, before journalists, we are people who must try to comprehend the collateral damage of our decisions.
I deeply apologize on behalf of The Aggie for allowing a racist advertisement to run and I guarantee that, before my tenure ends, I will personally do all that is within my power to prevent this from happening again in the future.
If you’d like to publicly express an opinion regarding this issue, you are encouraged to write a guest opinion or letter to the editor or attend a special meeting of the Campus Media Board this Friday. The exact time and location are to be determined and will be announced in The Aggie later this week.
MARK LING can be reached at editor@theaggie.org.
OK, just to clarify, no one has a constitutional right to publish an ad in the newspaper. The fact is that it is racist, and if the same ad was submitted about Native Americans instead of Palestinians, no one would even bat an eye in rejecting it.
though the ad’s speech is hateful, it does not directly call for violence. for this reason, it seems wrong for a newspaper to apologize for running this ad. just because something is not true, or is unpleasant to hear, it does not mean that it should be censored. it was clearly labeled as a ‘paid advertisement’ and also clearly does not represent the opinions of the Aggie as a whole. even though the content was repugnant, you still can’t deny someone their first amendment right just because the content is offensive.
mark, i know how difficult this decision was and how stressful it was for everyone on ed board. though i do not necessarily agree with you stance, i really respect how much thought you put in to your decision.
Arafat, bro calm down.
Mark, simply put, thank you.
@Arafat: Islam wasn’t mentioned anywhere in his letter, so not exactly sure to what you’re referring.
Free speech never needs to lump every person of a race and blame them for something. There are opinions, and there are false claims of propaganda. The ad was the latter, Arafat.
Thank you, Mark. However difficult and stressful this was, you did the right thing, and your readers appreciate it. This is truly a shining moment for The Aggie.
It’s probably best to save your energy talking to Arafat. He knows he talks nonsense and so does anyone whose read anything else he’s put up on here.
And, I agree– thank you Mark. I really appreciated you holding a productive meeting with us. I also understand the view point of the 4 editors who did not support your apology. I see both sides. But I feel you did the right thing.
@justice, thanks for the clarification, I totally agree.
@mark, thanks for showing true leadership. it’ll be difficult to fill your shoes at the aggie, and best of luck on your next career move!
The Ad was targeting a race Arafat, not those of a religion therefore it was RACIST. Palestinians are NOT a religion, nor do all Palestinians follow a single religion.
Thank you Mark
“It is generally the policy of The Aggie to not succumb to protestors because we carefully make decisions that are intended to inform and promote discourse.”
Well, Horowitz’s advertisement certainly did this. But, in the spirit of being politically correct and sensitive to those who would destroy the Jews if given half a chance, let’s go back on this goal — the goal of informing and promoting discourse — kiss the First Amendment good-day and cave into those who would squash discourse of given the chance to do so.
People like this, for instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyExaO4jzD0
Or, these people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w96UR79TBw
“During the discussion, I was convinced that the ad is indeed racist.”
Hmmm…racist, eh?
Interesting that you give not one reason why you were convinced as such.
You want true hatred against another religion (not race)? Try this:
http://frontpagemag.com/2009/12/08/the-persistence-of-islamic-anti-semitism-by-robert-spencer/
“Racially discriminated against?”
That’s pretty funny, and all this time I was under the impression Islam was a religion made up of people of many different races.
Mark, you sure you know what you’re talking about?