Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rolling Stone Bans Bible Ad Aimed At Reaching Young People
GOPUSA ^ | January 21, 2005 | Jimmy Moore

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 20somethingslist; aclumia; ads; antichristian; antitheist; atheists; bible; bigotry; bigots; christianbashing; christianity; christians; culturewar; doublestandard; genx; liberalbigots; lions; music; religion; religiousintolerance; rockandroll; rockmusic; rollingstone; rollingstoned; rs; tniv; zondervan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last
Rejection of a Bible ad. Par for the course in Secular-land?
1 posted on 01/21/2005 4:38:08 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: abner; Abundy; AGreatPer; alisasny; AlwaysFree; AnnaSASsyFR; Angelwood; aristeides; Askel5; ...
Are they worried that people who read the bible will reject their magazine?

Christians and Lions PING!

2 posted on 01/21/2005 4:39:14 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Deport 'em all; let Fox sort 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Rolling Stone has the right to reject anything thaey want.

Move on.....(not .org)

3 posted on 01/21/2005 4:40:55 PM PST by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I guess they should have poised it as an ad for pedophilia.


4 posted on 01/21/2005 4:41:17 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

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.


5 posted on 01/21/2005 4:45:55 PM PST by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spok

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.


6 posted on 01/21/2005 4:48:31 PM PST by George from New England
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Spok

I have thought for some time that the existence of Satan is easier to prove than most religious ideas.


7 posted on 01/21/2005 4:50:45 PM PST by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Anybody know the difference between the TNIV and the NIV?

I'm familiar with the NIV, but not the newer one.


8 posted on 01/21/2005 4:52:58 PM PST by Ramius (Gregoirovich Nyet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zarf

And it's certainly shouldn't be a surprise that they would reject God and His Word.


9 posted on 01/21/2005 4:56:30 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

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.


10 posted on 01/21/2005 5:00:00 PM PST by brewer1516
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zarf

"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.


11 posted on 01/21/2005 5:04:33 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: zarf
"Rolling Stone has the right to reject anything thaey want."

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.

12 posted on 01/21/2005 5:12:54 PM PST by Liberator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
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.

Since when does rejecting material not deemed consistant with a publications theme considered "manifest hostility"?

Ridiculous.

13 posted on 01/21/2005 5:13:29 PM PST by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Rolling Stone is not the place to reach a young demographic. My aunts and uncles read it!


14 posted on 01/21/2005 5:14:14 PM PST by Clemenza (Europhiles and Monarchists should be purged)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
From what I understand, the TNIV is a more "modern" translation, using terms that would make it more agreeable to feminists.
15 posted on 01/21/2005 5:14:52 PM PST by ken in texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Liberator
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.

Your point being?

16 posted on 01/21/2005 5:14:55 PM PST by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

I was just wondering the same thing, if anyone knows anything about this bible.


17 posted on 01/21/2005 5:18:14 PM PST by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: zarf

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.


18 posted on 01/21/2005 5:22:46 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree

Yah. I have a few different xlations, but the NIV was my favorite. Good use of proper english without being dated or PC.


19 posted on 01/21/2005 5:24:28 PM PST by Ramius (Gregoirovich Nyet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree; Ramius
I know a little. They were distributing a version of it a while ago; I had it on my hard drive.

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.

20 posted on 01/21/2005 5:25:56 PM PST by jude24 ("To go against conscience is neither right nor safe." - Martin Luther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Liberator
Too bad it doesn't do any good to boycott something one never buys, anyway.
21 posted on 01/21/2005 5:26:34 PM PST by unspun (unspun.info | Did U work your precinct, churchmembers, etc. for good votes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jude24

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...


22 posted on 01/21/2005 5:30:47 PM PST by Ramius (Gregoirovich Nyet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

BTTT


23 posted on 01/21/2005 5:34:39 PM PST by Fiddlstix (This Tagline for sale. (Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

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.


24 posted on 01/21/2005 5:47:36 PM PST by Chris_Shugart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
If you're as smart as you think you are, you'll shut up and take a lesson.

I've read it pal. Still don't get your "hostility" reference, buddy boy.

25 posted on 01/21/2005 5:52:52 PM PST by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

As if the world expected RS mag to be tolerant. Only conservatives must be tolerant. And yet, some cannot see the double-standard. Sheep...


26 posted on 01/21/2005 5:59:23 PM PST by Righter-than-Rush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Righter-than-Rush
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.

27 posted on 01/21/2005 6:06:05 PM PST by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
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.

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.

28 posted on 01/21/2005 6:07:51 PM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

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.


29 posted on 01/21/2005 7:06:52 PM PST by mlmr (The Majority of the Murders Committed Worldwide have been Committed by Leftist Governments..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jude24; Ramius

I'm not completely sure if there's a bible in the house, if there is, it's the King James version, though.


30 posted on 01/21/2005 7:15:45 PM PST by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
I'm not completely sure if there's a bible in the house, if there is, it's the King James version, though.

Huh?

31 posted on 01/21/2005 7:24:31 PM PST by jude24 ("To go against conscience is neither right nor safe." - Martin Luther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jude24

I'm not sure what you are asking me?


32 posted on 01/21/2005 8:25:19 PM PST by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree

I'm not sure at all what you were talking about above.


33 posted on 01/21/2005 8:26:51 PM PST by jude24 ("To go against conscience is neither right nor safe." - Martin Luther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jude24

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.


34 posted on 01/21/2005 8:30:50 PM PST by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
Ah. I asked that because there are people out there who claim the KJV is the only true Bible, and that the other ones are Satanic peversions.

Frankly, I'm suprised none of them have made it onto this thread yet.

35 posted on 01/21/2005 8:33:16 PM PST by jude24 ("To go against conscience is neither right nor safe." - Martin Luther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: jude24

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.


36 posted on 01/21/2005 8:38:42 PM PST by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: qam1

ping


37 posted on 01/22/2005 3:31:45 AM PST by freepatriot32 (http://chonlalonde.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
You mean this Ken Brownridge ? Wenner Media's General Manager (and sensitivity trainer) Kent Brownridge spoke for all the mags when he gave this self-effacing though still highly offensive quote: "For a celebrity weekly, this is our tsunami... I can't think of anything bigger than the king and queen of Hollywood breaking up." Right. Brad and Jen are so like the tsunami. For instance, whenever we read about either, we begin to cry uncontrollably, think about killing ourselves, and mutter that god does not exist. It's Blooper Time [NYP] Brownridge's penchant for ornery straight-shooting comes in part from his days of working on political campaigns for Democrats like George McGovern. It was after one such loss in a California primary 26 years ago that Brownridge agreed to Jann Wenner's offer to come work at Rolling Stone. "I was starting to feel like a political migrant worker," he says. Hmmm. Looks like Brownridge has always had a way with squirm-inducing metaphors. http://www.nypost.com/seven/01122005/business/kelly.htm http://www.gawker.com/news/media/us-weekly/index.php

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.

38 posted on 01/22/2005 3:45:39 AM PST by Selkie (You can argue 'til you're blue in the face, but I'll always be right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32; ItsOurTimeNow; PresbyRev; tortoise; Fraulein; StoneColdGOP; Clemenza; malakhi; ...
Xer Ping

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.  

39 posted on 01/22/2005 8:33:24 AM PST by qam1 (Anyone who was born in New Jersey should not be allowed to drive at night or on hills.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Outside of doctor/dentist offices, Does anyone even subscribe to this rag anymore?


40 posted on 01/22/2005 8:35:58 AM PST by qam1 (Anyone who was born in New Jersey should not be allowed to drive at night or on hills.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Hmmm, what are they planning on doing in the afterlife??


41 posted on 01/22/2005 8:37:47 AM PST by television is just wrong (Our sympathies are misguided with illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: qam1; 537cant be wrong; Aeronaut; bassmaner; Bella_Bru; Brian Allen; cgk; ChadGore; ...

Rock and Roll PING! email Weegee to get on/off this list (or grab it yourself to PING the rest)

42 posted on 01/22/2005 8:49:57 AM PST by t_skoz ("let me be who I am - let me kick out the jams!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

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?


43 posted on 01/22/2005 10:35:34 AM PST by Tabi Katz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Rolling Stone was a perfect fit for the group we want to reach," Lockhart explained to USA Today.

Huh? The only people who read Rolling Stone are 50+, as far as I know.

44 posted on 01/22/2005 11:25:24 AM PST by Sloth (Al Franken is a racist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spok
It's conduct like this that pushed me from agnosticism to Christianity. It's the Eighth Proof of the existence of God.

The strangest things pass for proof in your world.

45 posted on 01/22/2005 11:51:53 AM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: brewer1516

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.


46 posted on 01/22/2005 11:53:53 AM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
Rolling Stone is not the place to reach a young demographic. My aunts and uncles read it!

I read it, and I'm probably the same age as your aunts and uncles.

47 posted on 01/22/2005 11:55:25 AM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
Huh? The only people who read Rolling Stone are 50+, as far as I know.

Ha! I read it and I'm only 41.

48 posted on 01/22/2005 11:58:57 AM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
Thing is though, the Living Bible is a paraphrase, not a direct translation. If I'm not mistaken (I don't own a Living Bible, so I'm not sure) it never claims to be a translation. The good that the Living Bible has done though is that it helped get people interested in the Word that would have otherwise tuned out the archaic "thees" and "Thous" of the KJB or some of the long, in depth sequences throughout any other proper translation. In that light, the Living Bible is meant to be a tool to compliment a proper translation, and it has, many times, served that purpose.

I remember a few years ago when the NIV translators said they wanted to make a "gender friendly" translation. The response from most churches and Christian publications, as I recall, was that that was a bad idea. Instead, publishers like Zondervan should simply continue to print study Bibles with commentaries contained throughout the Bible aimed at specific groups of people (i.e. The Student Bible for Teens, the Women's Study Bible, etc.). If the NIV translators wanted to make things gender friendly then it would not be treated as a translation. I guess things were forgotten.
49 posted on 01/22/2005 12:41:01 PM PST by raynearhood ("America is too great for small dreams." - Ronald Reagan, speech to Congress. January 1, 1984.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

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.


50 posted on 01/22/2005 12:50:42 PM PST by raynearhood ("America is too great for small dreams." - Ronald Reagan, speech to Congress. January 1, 1984.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson