republican campaign ads on culture kitchen media?

Because we have bills to pay. Providing you Hillarybots with a spamming forum costs actual money.

So yeah, if Benito Giuliani wants to waste his money on ads here, whatever. Even if they're served up by Google via their contextual criteria, since this site writes about politics.

God, how I wish som people would do three seconds worth of research before lunging at their keyboard.

But it defeats your purpose. Do you want to come here each day next year and find out that the RNC is buying mass blocks of ad time on google and flooding your websites with their ads? Not all people who come here know what this site is about, they may see culture kitchen, interesting name and come here. Then they see, before they even see the content, big bold colorful campaign ads for rudy guiliani. They link to his site. They don't know how web ads work and they think culture kitchen is endorsing guiliani. It could happen.

Is making a profit off of this site more important than protecting its message? Google isn't the only web ad generating service out there. Surely there are other services that will have contextual criteria that is not so general as to place ads from the opposition to run all the time. This will hurt the integrity of this site if Liza does not complain to google and look for alternatives to give her ad business. I hope she has.

If you want to have a say-so in how this site is run, start sending Liza some checks. Or you can just open your own blog for purity trolls like yourself who don't understand how Google AdSense works.

BTW, if I catch you reposting deleted content again, we're done here. Last warning.

I'm sorry but to me and others I'm sure, seeing republican campaign ads on here is offensive, as offensive as if the ads featured p o r n or babies heads or something. Why can't you understand that if ads offend users, it is worth considering the consequences of running them. Are you saying that you won't question google adsense or complain to them, no matter how offensive the ads get? No matter if they might be generating hits and money to guiliani's web site? If thats the case you guys are selling your souls for money. We are in a political war in this country and you are letting the opposition ads run here and not saying anything. You either want to fight the war or you do not. If those ads solicit one dollar for guiliani's campaign or one vote, from this site, it is horrible and you guys should not stand for it. In my opinion.

Also this entry was categorized under a category for complaints about the web site. This is a valid complain, solicited in the prescribed manner.

...these ads are served up by an external partner. If you'd like to pay the bills here, and feed Liza's kids, a small sacrifice since we're at war, please contact Liza.

There's a dichotomy here between what the purity trolls want and what people who run sites and need to pay for them need. Most people fluent enough to visit a site like this understand that ads always come from externals; it's how that business runs.

I can't believe Michael Bouldin just said that Culture Kitchen accepts Rudy Giuliani ads "because it pays the bills." Would Mr. Bouldin also join Rudy's campaign staff if the price were right? And they accuse of engaging in the "P" word and the "W" word?!

As usual, the offensiveness of the actual behavior in the "progressive" whitosphere is compounded by the unrepentant hypocrisy with which the behavior is conducted.

I'll tell you one thing: Rudy Giuliani could buy me an all expenses paid trip to China and it wouldn't get him one ad at my blog.

rwallnerny2007, I'm not going to name any names, but there are some in the "progressive" libertarian whitosphere who voted Republican in the past and might do so again at some point in the future. In such a context, where some people's commitment to the Left is weak, situational and recent, not everyone is going to be offended by taking ads for Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, or even George Bush himself. It pays the bills, after all.

With respect to Michael, I think he sometimes forgets that the person whom he is insulting is not the only person reading the comments.

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

www.francislholland.blogspot.com
francislholland@yahoo.com

There is no free media. Even PBS makes you feel cheap by not anti-ing up. But after going to church, a person can be conditioned. You can pay your fair share and then something comes up, and they put a plate in front of you. I believe adults should remember the power of reason to just say no.
In the case of Google's backing blogs, what's the story? Do they promise fair and balanced?
Another thing to think about is that if "everyone's doing it," blogs are just like TV and radio. Ignore the ads.
There's a deeper question? What is a free press? Or is it just a choice of editorial perspective? Maybe we should start talking about whether Democratic politicians have a right to stay off Fox News.
A little fer instance: Would this blog advertise Ann Coulter? And another little question, if one opens a YouTube with her, does that show her popularity? Coulter is just an example, but surely one we think about.

Do you know, mole, if there are blogs which don't deal with Google who deal with someone else, GoogleLite, shall we say? And are there blogs which are what? Self starters? I'm thinking of ConsortiumNews, OpEdNews, and even politicalcortex. Hey, I saw your post again.
And while we're at it, one area which fascinates me are the blogs connected to online MSM pages. Like WP has Slate. I don't know what NYT calls theirs. I guess one thing which is important is the ability to link one's blog to everyone else's blog.
It didn't take blogging to start the round robin effect. I realized when I started with yahoogroups what a member in one group was doing was promoting another group where they were in charge.
By the way. How did I get a hold of you in the first place, mole?

Politicians comment that the blogsters have to be reckoned with. MSM set up their own blogs. As do candidates.
And some bloggers, like Kos, get to be known beyond their core membership.
It used to be I would see, on a yahoogroup, a reference to another yahoogroup, managed by the one posting the invitation to join. (It may have been the way I found your newsletter, mole, because I joined just one yahoogroup after the 04 election.)
One thing is for sure. Money is involved to publish blogs, just as it is for other media. It's not as hard to come by because the internet doesn't take as much. Still, them that pays, gets.
I notice how the blogs are interested in linking to other blogs. Just as print media have larger corporations they're associated with. Print was given an alert when McClatchey was sold. Even the NYTimes charges for some of their stories. Personally, I use salon.com so much that I fork over a subscription fee. I like places which have reporters. And I am also glad to read those sites which reference other published articles, on or off line.
I think what makes things clear for me is to know whether there is some investigative reporting behind what I read. And if not, then it should be evident that what is being said is analysis or opinion.
This gets back to high school journalism. There's news, feature stories and opinion. And the difference should be clear.
If a person owns a blog, that person has a view point, and if she/he takes in advertising--to me that's just advertising. And I'm a little cranky. I just don't pay much attention to ads. The pols would lose a ton of money if everyone thought like I did. I do, however, believe that it is going too far when TV plays the ads, for free, and consider it news. Analysis, possibly. Opinion, most likely. And demagogery, at times.

They have begun to take up a few articles on the media. At first I thought they would not touch this flap. Then, as two columnists, who had been on Imus' show, discussed the situation, I realized they had a lot to inform about the issue. For one, there was a little retribution for Imus' past barbs involving people appearing on the News Hour.
The question boiled down to how many times a person should be forgiven just because he said he's sorry. This was newsworthy to me, because the popular issues of the day don't come often on a hard news program, like the News Hour is.
In another matter, I see Obama is joining Edwards in avoiding a debate on Fox News. I'm beginning to wonder if the Democrats have woke up to the fact that they get used.
On April 3 Salon had an opinion piece on how Fox has a way of slanting issues even without snubbing the Democrats overtly. In this case, it was to show how they put Harold Ford and Rick Santorum on staff. Two losers in the election, but few Democratic losses in comparison to Republican. There's a long list of folks mentioned. Good article, worth reading.