Prudence and The Economist
A few weeks back I posted on the subject of the "high" ranking of The Economist news magazine in an academic study of news magazines and the frequency of portrayal of unclothed women.
At the time I reported this matter of factly. Now I'm ready to pontificate.
The Economist's article on the study suggests two attitudes: (1) the photographs are harmless, and (2) the criticism of nudity in the magazine reflects immature American prudishness.
The owners of The Economist should ask themselves this question: Is our editorial policy financially prudent or is it harmful to the profitability of the magazine? In other words, are we alienating half of our potential subscribers and readers -- or more -- worldwide? The advertisers in The Economist will ask themselves the same thing.
A few weeks back I posted on the subject of the "high" ranking of The Economist news magazine in an academic study of news magazines and the frequency of portrayal of unclothed women.
At the time I reported this matter of factly. Now I'm ready to pontificate.
The Economist's article on the study suggests two attitudes: (1) the photographs are harmless, and (2) the criticism of nudity in the magazine reflects immature American prudishness.
The owners of The Economist should ask themselves this question: Is our editorial policy financially prudent or is it harmful to the profitability of the magazine? In other words, are we alienating half of our potential subscribers and readers -- or more -- worldwide? The advertisers in The Economist will ask themselves the same thing.
posted by John B. Chilton at 2/25/2005 01:32:00 PM
1 Comments:
The very next issue that I received, I looked for all the reported nudity and saw none. In fact, as I leafed through the issue from front to back, the first photo of a female I saw was of Margaret Thatcher. Perhaps my powers of perception are failing?
Post a Comment
<< Home