Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Media

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Eugene

(62,775 posts)
Thu Jan 3, 2013, 02:55 PM Jan 2013

Conn. paper regrets gun ad next to Sandy Hook story [View all]

Source: USA Today

Conn. paper regrets gun ad next to Sandy Hook story

2:33p.m. EST January 3, 2013

An executive for the Stamford (Conn.) Advocate apologized Thursday for the appearance of a gun show ad next to a news story about the resumption of classes for Sandy Hook Elementary School students for the first time since the shootings that killed 20 children and six adults Dec. 14.

A photograph of the juxtaposition of the article and an ad for the "East Coast Fine Arms Show" quickly made the rounds on Twitter.

Media critic Jim Romenesko weighed in, asking, "Shouldn't it be standard operating procedure at this point to make sure there aren't gun ads next to school shooting-related stories?"

In an e-mail, Paul Farrell, Group Publisher for Hearst Media Services in Connecticut, said:

Our newspapers should not be running gun ads — including ads for antique and collectible gun shows — next to stories about Sandy Hook. It's insensitive, and it shouldn't have happened. It was an oversight, and we apologize for it. We have taken steps to make sure it doesn't happen again.


[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/03/stamford-advocate-connecticut-sandy-hook-shooting-gun-show-ad/1807115/
2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Media»Conn. paper regrets gun a...»Reply #0