Ads removed due to site's political content?

[Justin Case]

Hello,

I’m on a mission, looking for anybody else who has had a similar experience.

A website I write for, Earthblog.net, was recently notified by Burst Media that the ads provided by Burst Media would no longer be on the site because an advertiser found the content of one page offensive – a page which, strangely, had been on the site for several months already.

But….. The previous day, a politically controversial article had been posted on Earthblog.net. Of course there is no way to prove this, but we wonder if Burst Media’s termination of the business relationship was connected with that item, rather than the item which had already been on the site for so long.

Burst Media didn’t say “Fix this or we will sever relations with the site.” They said, in effect, “You’re out of here.” In a later communication, they did offer to reinstate the site if the offending page was removed. Of course the proprietor of Earthblog.net wasn’t interested. Also in a later communication, Burst Media spoke of “advertisers” in the plural, who had allegedly been offended – when at first it was only one advertiser.

There seems to be something slightly wonky about this affair. I’m interested in hearing from any other website that has lost its affiliate advertising whether from Burst Media or any other similar company, under circumstances that seem questionable.

My theory is that influence is being exerted in subtle, small ways in an attempt to silence unpopular political views. If I’m just paranoid – great! The world is a lot better place than I thought! But if this is a trend, I’d like to hear of similar events.


Best of all possible regards,
Pat Hartman

[KLB]

What is the URL of the page that they send was over the line politically? I'm no suprised that this happened. It is one of those trade offs one must make in web publishing. Sometimes it might be best to simply not put certain types of advertising on certain pages. Advertisers do have to be careful of the image they convey. This is one of those points where the freedom the press runs up against the free market.

[Chris]

Its not uncommon for businesses to avoid any controversial topic. Businesses don't want to alienate anyone and they'll do whatever they can to not be associated with sites that could piss off one group or another. The last thing a business wants is to be boycotted because their ads show up on such-and-such website.

If you want to be controversial thats a risk you take. This is also true of all forms of media.

[KLB]

It is possible to tackle controversial topics and still keep advertisers, it just requires tackling the controversial topic in an exceedingly professional manner using the highest journalistic standards with very solid research and excellent writing style. For instance, on public TV (PBS) here in the United States there is a series called "Front Line" that tackles some very controversial topics yet it also has some very good corporate sponsors helping to under write the program.

[Justin Case]

The page that was given as advertiser-offensive is this one. http://earthblog.net/eb-articles/burningbooks.html
They said it was because of the swastika. Although even Germany, very strict nowadays about such things, allows the sight of a swastika in art and education contexts. Both of which we consider this. Besides, the message of this pages is: nazis are bad. Who but a nazi could object to that?

But the severing of the business relationship took place one day after this page was put up http://earthblog.net/eb-articles/hartman10.html so I guess we could be excused for thinking there might be a connection.

I'm not sure the issue here is whether or not an advertiser has a legal right to have its ads where it pleases. One issue is, I believe Burst has the technological ability to keep that one advertiser's material off any given page or site. But they made an arbitrary, unilateral decision to remove ALL the advertising from the site. Numerically I don't know how many other potential advertisers there are in the Burst pool, but they did take it upon themselves to make the decision for all of them.

Anyway, I'm still interested in hearing from anyone with a similar story.

Pat Hartman

[KLB]

Ya, I could see that page crossing a line that advertisers would not want to cross. I might agree with the underlying message, but I even found the page offensive. To be honest, there were so many better ways to bring forth that issue than to use the "poster" as was done.

I have published articles that are very critical of the practices of the current administration, but it was done in a professional manner without resorting to this type of over the top "propaganda" and have never had a problem.

One doesn't need to censor one's views to keep from alienating advertisers, one simply needs to use some tact and put thought into how best present one's views. This is called diplomacy

[Cutter]

As I remember it was the right that was up in arms over Waco, blaming Janet Reno and Clinton for the events.

I wouldn't waste too much time trying to figure out why Burst booted you. You are probably right about political content, but it doesn't mean its a conspiracy or that your site alone is solely being targetted or because of a single article. I would guess someone working there classified your site as political fringe, be it left or right, I don't think it matters to them. Brand advertisers are picky about this stuff (even though I believe brand advertising is on of the biggest hoaxes of the last 100 years, but thats a different story.)

Reguardless, I don't think Burst is a very good advertising option for your site. Have you tried Adsense yet?

[allout]

I too write a political blog and I could see in this case where the advertiser would be willing to cut you off. No offence meant to you, however, I think the point could have been made without the fake speech and picture. On a political view I do not disagree but I am not sure I could endorse the pic and speech.