Skip to comments.Rolling Stone Bans Bible Ad Aimed At Reaching Young People
Posted on 01/21/2005 4:38:06 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
NEW YORK (Talon News) -- 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.
Copyright © 2005 Talon News -- All rights reserved.
Christians and Lions PING!
Move on.....(not .org)
I guess they should have poised it as an ad for pedophilia.
It's beyond decadence-it's evil.
It's conduct like this that pushed me from agnosticism to Christianity. It's the Eighth Proof of the existence of God.
This trash called Rolling Stone comes to me free of charge. Yes I do run a Wedding DJ service, but I have never paid for it. It simply goes in the trash.
I have thought for some time that the existence of Satan is easier to prove than most religious ideas.
Anybody know the difference between the TNIV and the NIV?
I'm familiar with the NIV, but not the newer one.
And it's certainly shouldn't be a surprise that they would reject God and His Word.
You are absolutely correct. Par for the course. Yet let's be clear; they have every right not to accept advertising that wouldn't (in their view) have a positive impact on their readership.
By the same token, I wouldn't expect American Rifelman to accept an ad for Bowling for Columbine.
"Rolling Stone has the right to reject anything thaey want."
Apparently I missed the part where someone challenged their rights. The point is, this action should be publicized to exemplify the manifest hostility of the left media toward traditional values in general and Christianity in particular...sabotaging of America which has barely been answered as yet.
Yeah -- so what?
This decision merely reinforced the fact that their rag is cowardly, dishonest, pretentious garbage while it's content caters to the orgaistic, drug, homo, leftist culture.
Since when does rejecting material not deemed consistant with a publications theme considered "manifest hostility"?
Rolling Stone is not the place to reach a young demographic. My aunts and uncles read it!
Your point being?
I was just wondering the same thing, if anyone knows anything about this bible.
Here's your chance to educate yourself, kid.
Go back and actually read the article, to begin with.
Then, explain the facts as they are presented without alluding to a posture of hostility toward the object of the ad, ie an edition of the Bible. If you can do that without looking ridiculous yourself, I'll be glad to acknowledge it.
If you're as smart as you think you are, you'll shut up and take a lesson.
Yah. I have a few different xlations, but the NIV was my favorite. Good use of proper english without being dated or PC.
Anyway, what's going on with it is the logical conclusion of "dynamic equivalence." When you translate something, there are two ways you can try to translate it - as literally as possible, or thought-for-thought. The old NIV tried to be somewhat more thought-for-thought, without becoming a paraphrase.
The new tNIV's biggest change is to eliminate gender-specific pronouns where a modern writer would not use them. For instance, rather than address "brothers," "brothers and sisters" are addressed. "People" instead of "man" in some contexts.
It effectively communicates the message, and won't offend the feminists. But I wouldn't rely upon it for close exegesis.
I see. While I see the benefit of a "thought for thought" approach, I think it is important to also keep in mind the historical context of the author. It's not how somebody today would say it, but rather how somebody *then* would have said had they spoken english as we do. Subtle, but important differences.
That's the mistake that the "Living Bible" made...
Flippant, but true. I've seen the ads in RS and it's a sad reflection on their readership. RS may have done the bible publisher a favor. It didn't sound like a good strategy to begin with. They no doubt can spend their advertising dollars better elsewhere.
I've read it pal. Still don't get your "hostility" reference, buddy boy.
As if the world expected RS mag to be tolerant. Only conservatives must be tolerant. And yet, some cannot see the double-standard. Sheep...
The sad irony here is that mags like RS and Spin are mouthpieces for the big corporate music industry. These are two of the most "conservative" rags on the market. They risk offending no-one, despite the pho-"progressive" image they flout.
It would take a ballsy editor indeed to go ahead with this ad.
No one has ever accused Big Music of having a pair.
I don't think anybody would be surprised that Rolling Stone would consider a Christian ad unsuitable for their magazine.
I'm rather surprised a Christian organization would even want to advertize in Rolling Stone.
I'm familiar with the NIV, but not the newer one.
It is the gender politically correct version and has caused great contraversy in the Protestant world.
I'm not completely sure if there's a bible in the house, if there is, it's the King James version, though.
I'm not sure what you are asking me?
I'm not sure at all what you were talking about above.
I just meant that, not being very religious, I haven't looked at my bible in awhile. But the version I own is the King James version, which I like.
Frankly, I'm suprised none of them have made it onto this thread yet.
I hadn't known about that contorversy!
I just now googled KJV - apparently the the intent of that translation was that it be written in a more or less contemporary language for the English people of that time, 1611. Like many others, I find the language often quite beautiful.
And on an OT note that will totally distract from the post Ive just written above, here's a pic on gawker.com of Ann Coulter talking to Tim Robbins at the Wenner Media Holiday party What a pairing.
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effects Generation Reagan / Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
Outside of doctor/dentist offices, Does anyone even subscribe to this rag anymore?
Hmmm, what are they planning on doing in the afterlife??
Rock and Roll PING! email Weegee to get on/off this list (or grab it yourself to PING the rest)
They're probably worried that some young hippie-dippie types will actually get the idea that there is such a thing as right and wrong - and we can't have that, can we?
Huh? The only people who read Rolling Stone are 50+, as far as I know.
The strangest things pass for proof in your world.
You're looking at this far too reasonably. I'm afraid that few in this thread will heed your logic, but will instead flock like moths to a flame to the more bellicose ideas.
I read it, and I'm probably the same age as your aunts and uncles.
Ha! I read it and I'm only 41.
It is completely within their rights to not publish this ad. Did anyone here, or anywhere for that matter, ever have any illusions that the editors of Rolling Stones were closet Chiristians. As far as some comments that say that this should be exposed and made public...
It is exposed and public, as evidenced by this article. If you want your friends to know, tell them, but making a huge deal of this, or trying to get the MSM to make it a big story. None of that accomplishes anything useful.