Rolling Stone Bans Bible Ad
 

Another case of the shoe on the other foot...

According to Newsmax here.

Rolling Stone magazine rejected an ad from the nation's largest Bible publisher, USA Today reports Tuesday.

Though the message doesn't mention God, it does tout publisher Zondervan's new Bible translation aimed at "spiritually intrigued 18-to-34-year-olds."

"The magazine rejected Zondervan's Bible ad just weeks before its scheduled run date, citing an unwritten policy against accepting ads containing religious messages," the paper noted.

USA Today reported that Zondervan executives say the entertainment magazine was key in its $1 million campaign to reach young adults who have rarely, if ever, seen Bible ads before. Surveys show that 53 percent of this age group read the Bible less than once a year or never, although they are huge buyers of books on spiritual and religious themes.

Today's New International Version of the Bible (TNIV) is a modern English translation from Zondervan, publisher of the world's best-selling English translation, the 1978 New International Version. The TNIV features updated language and scholarship.

The ad features a young male unsure about life. The ad copy says the Bible is "real truth" in a world of "endless media noise and political spin."

USA Today said Rolling Stone was angry about the ad's slogan: "Timeless Truth; Today's Language."

"And that assertion of 'truth' evidently triggered the rebuff from Rolling Stone," the paper said.

good. god is pleased

Good to hear. Now get them off the fucking subway stations here and I'll be happy. Religious ads, like those for smokes and booze should be forced to carry warning labels.

Maybe we could come up with one.

New thread? We could have one thread to com eup with a few of them and then do a poll to pick the best.

If Rolling Stone refuses ads with religious messages ... why have they accepted advertising from Gavin and Yvonne Frost's School of Witchcraft and Wicca for all these years?

Or does the policy only apply to display ads, and not the classifieds?

I don't know. I just like the how they were so incensed about it.

I read an article somewhere that said that they have now agreed to run the ad (aol and the onion will also) and that refusing it originally was an error on their part. Can't find it now though, sorry.

CNN