Why is LA Metblogs running anti-gay ads for Yes on Prop 8?!

Check out the bigotry ad currently running on LA Metblogs. Do we need the money that badly? Also, there’s a small Google ad for “Protect Marriage.”

30 Replies to “Why is LA Metblogs running anti-gay ads for Yes on Prop 8?!”

  1. As I said, it’s google contextual so because we’re talking about how stupid that prop is, google sees that runs it against who bought ads and pulls those.

  2. Chal, I totally understand how google ads work and sadly content is matched to buzz words not editorial content. Your posts were great, as Markland points out we MAKE money off the ad because of your post.

    Rock on pal, you get it, I get and now if we can get the word spread into the LA Bible Belt pockets we can make a difference.

  3. Also please note that we didn’t know these ads were there until they showed up and have been trying to block them ever since, but google is slow on that and it takes hours and hours for blocks to show up.

  4. I never see the ads, because I use AdBlockPlus with Firefox. As long as they are there, though, why not take as much money as possible from those hate/fear mongers?

  5. Hmm, all of a sudden the Yes on 8 ads are gone. Now we’re back to tequila and credit cards– two of my favorite things.

  6. I’m no fan of Prop 8, I even donated money to oppose it, but does it strike anyone else as wrong to block this ad? This is supposed to be about the free exchange of ideas, no? I’m sure most people on this site support Obama, would a McCain ad be blocked? If there was a proposition the LA blogging community opposed by a percentage of 51/49 would it be blocked by majority rule? What if one of your writers were pro Prop 8, would he be censored from posting a defense of it?

  7. I must agree with kedrowss on this one. How do you know that there aren’t religious conservatives that peruse this site? Just because most people here are left-leaning doesn’t mean that there aren’t any religious right-leaners.

  8. This is supposed to be about the free exchange of ideas, no?

    Apparently, not.

    As long as I’ve been coming here, most of the commenters react very hostile to anyone even remotely possessing a conservative viewpoint. Though I will say, David Markland is consistently the most fair-minded when it comes to dissenting opinion.

    Perhaps I’ve been mistaken but I was under the impression that LA Metblogs was supposed to be representative of all local news, viewpoints and events.

    It would be nice to read this site on a daily basis without having to be constantly bombarded with liberal talking points.

    I know this is election season but sometimes the partisan rhetoric here can be a little intimidating.

  9. Kedrows — big diff between free exchange of ideas encouraged in the COMMENTS and the solicitation of PAID ADVERTISING from companies. My first reaction is, I’m with Chal. That said, from what little I know about the technology, the problem seems to be that Google Ads is literally a dumb technology. Again based on my scant knowledge of this, please correct me if I’m wroing, but it seems that Google just searches for key words and aims ads at those pages, without regard for context or consistency between the blog content and the ad. So, for example, if you write a post dissing, just completely destroying, a product or restaurant chain, Google might run an ad for that very product a few inches away. I think that’s a really stupid, ineffective way to advertise, guerrilla campaigns to cause more clicks and more $$ aside.

    It’s a somewhat separate issue whether Metblogs should block certain ads. Can it be done? Do we know what the ad will be in advance? What if the authors here are split on an issue (not the case here)? We’re not a newspaper and there isn’t one editorial voice. It’s an interesting issue.

  10. See what I mean?

    Chal Pivik = Big Meanie

    (j/k :)

    Matt: If the self-described conservative blogs can roll with these Google ads (ex. Gay dating & Madonna tour ads popping up over this posted story ), then I’m sure LA Metbog readers can deal.

    Actually, we find it kind of amusing when it happens.

  11. Hm. I don’t believe this proposition is an example of “opposing viewpoints”. To me, it is simply adding discrimination to a document that is intended to describe our rights and freedoms. And IT IS bigotry and intolerance from the folks from Yes on 8. Questions of semantic and terminology cannot convince me otherwise.

    The question of bigotry and intolerance on behalf of LA Metblog is what I consider questionable. As stupid as the Google technology might be, it’s the way it works (don’t we benefit from the internet in so many ways?) Censoring advertising, as much as I hate to admit, might be unethical — and perhaps unlawful?

  12. The gay wedding chapel ad looks icky, I must say. So much for gays having the market on good design covered.

  13. 1. Metblogs has the right to choose whatever ads it wants – there is no legal requirement whatsoever for even a major TV network ad, let alone a blog.

    2. Indeed, LA Metblogs does have a liberal leaning, but not by design. While I was City Captain, I would routinely try and recruit authors with an opposing POV… for example, Frazgo! I even brough Chal on board because he often has a different POV. The difficult part is finding not only alternate viewpoints, but people who are also friendly about it… that said, I don’t know why I never pursued Ugly American, who I disagree with 95% of the time (Lucinda is the new Captain – hope she’s reading this!).

    3. I also agree with Chal that opposition to Prop 8 does come down to bigotry. I see absolutely no justification to block gay marriage that doesn’t involve a purely religious viewpoint or a flat out intolerant one. If you disagree, lay out your case, and I will nail you on it point by point. That is, unless you simply believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, then in which case you’re a moron, and not necessarily a bigot.

  14. Most folks have said what needs to be said but ads are not editorial. We’re as wide open and welcome to discussion on editorial as possible, and I think it’s amusing we’re getting called liberal here now when it wasn’t that long ago that my pro-gun posts were bringing out hoards of people calling me/us right wing. But ads are a different thing, we have the right to choose who we want to support and who we want to take money from. I wouldn’t accept an add from the KKK and I’m not going to take one from something like this either. Every publisher does that very thing.

  15. I dunno – if people are going to spend money advertising their latest initiative in organized bigotry, I’m not sure that sucking up their ad-buying dollars by allowing their ads to be placed next to articles explaining just what a load of deceptive bigotry their campaign really is, is all that bad an idea.

    Just a thought. :-)

Comments are closed.