Is that BlogAd bothering you? The one for MSNBC?
UPDATE: The ad -- which was an outline of a female figure promoting an MSNBC news story about pornography -- no longer appears in the sidebar.
१२ डिसेंबर, २००५
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२९ टिप्पण्या:
As with MSNBC itself, I just kinda skipped over it.
Thank God they're covering the news-worthy world of porn, tho. Wow, do you ever just sit back and reel in amazement at how lucky we are to have Journalists?! They are so important!
Nope! Not a bit.
(And I won't make the quip that entered my mind, either, out of respect.)
I use adblock in Firefox so I can block images if they annoy me. Hence, it doesn't bother me anymore. I guess the most bothersome thing about it (besides from being ugly) is what joe baby said. A story about internet porn? Wow! How innovative and appealing!
Reminds me of local news during sweeps, bring on the expose of some sex industry complete with hidden cameras, suggestive teasing ads. I guess its better than watching Keith Olbermann's head explode...
Are you fellow implying that MSNBC is sacrificing journalistic integrity for filthy profits?!
Must be Sweeps Month again:-)
Wait, you're not concerned about where porn is heading next?
Yes, but only because Lovely Rita, Meter Maid,Cosby is doing the story behind it.
The ad itself, no, you can see outlines of females everywhere.
Wait, you're not concerned about where porn is heading next?
Let me use this as a springboard for a slam of Jean Chatzky, the personal finance consultant on The Today Show.
Master of the obvious, she never fails to earnestly describe a personal finance topic that everyone figured out three years ago.
Be wary of credit card debt. You can make your Xmas purchases online. Etc.
They pay people to do this, apparently.
I like the ad.
I know this is revealing way too much about me, but isn't that ad actually quite retro, ie, a derivative of the chrome image on redneck mudflaps?
No, I am not all that worried about where pornography is going next on the Internet. I have seen stuff out there for years that would make your hair curl. And, maybe, I just don't have enough imagination to visualize how much worse it can get.
I don't get all that many porno spam emails these days, as compared to the more wholesome types of fraunds, like paypal or ebay pfishing, or the ubiquitous pharmacy adds.
I also take the position that if your kids sees something on the Internet that s/he shouldn't yet see, that it is a your parental performance problem, and not an Internet problem.
You are right, Simon.
Actually it reminds me of a piece of art I might see on the cover of a noir fiction novel by Jim Thompson or David Goodis.
Simon: Yesterday, they had exactly the mudflap image. Some of us remember Thelma and Louise becoming enraged over that image.
Jonathan: We were sent a warning that the porn ads were going to appear in the series. Of course, I was in a position to approve or disapprove, and I could complain now if I wanted to. I'm kind of on the line about whether these go to far. But I'm accepting them because they really are just line drawings of a female figure. I've made many such drawings myself in art school and life drawing classes.
The whole sweeps effect is kind of bad.
Ann: "Some of us remember Thelma and Louise becoming enraged over that image."
And we all know what happened to Thelma and Louise.
One could argue the ad had its intended effect: it got noticed.
Maybe I'm missing something but there's no television sweeps period until February.
I'm not bothered by this ad, FWIW, any more than the others. But the program sounds lame.
Wow, here I was thinkin' RLC was tryin' to hype up his blog...and it was MSNBC...M'bad!
"And we all know what happened to Thelma and Louise."
And we all know what happened to the guy with the truck.
"I don't know how much someone makes from hosting blog ads, although I suspect it's not a lot."
It's easy to calculate if you click on "buy an Althouse ad" at the bottom of the ads. I charge $80 a week for the nonpremium ads, and BlogAds takes 25% of that.
"Regardless, does that mean you won't take any money that's generated as a result of the ad?"
Hey, I approved the ad, and I just said that I accept it. If I didn't want the money from it, I would have rejected it, obviously.
I clicked on the ad at MVRWC, because I couldn't believe Beth would approve a porn ad. I clicked it, saw it was MSNBC and had no discernible porn, and left. where I in the market for something porn-like, I would've been real mad that I got words instead of nudie.
OK, Ann: Now I've changed my mind.
I went back into your Nov. 30th archive files because something there relates tangentially to a weird post I'm writing, and there are those neon--ahem--mammaries--ahem--pointing to the start of the comments section I wanted to reference.
HAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAH!
Ann: "And we all know what happened to the guy with the truck."
Hey, although I am a guy, I contributed $10,000 to help pass the (unsuccessful) Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. My credentials are good.
I think it is innapropriate and distracting. It is not distracting in a good way and lowers the value of your website.
I could care less if someone wants to blister their palm from doing whatever it is they do to get their jollies on the Internet.
I just don't think it belongs on blogs such as this where people aren't expecting it. I don't like having to scroll down quickly when my son walks in the room. It is not pron per se, put it is pronISH.
Is this ad acceptable on a large news website, such as NYT.com? I haven't seen the ad there and I bet it would be rejected. They have standards, and I think bloggers who wish to be treated seriously should have standards as well.
I never cared for that weight training ad that shows a vaguely Aryan-looking guy humping the floor, either.
Those of you who are objecting strenuously: what is it about the outlne of a female figure that is disturbing you so much? Why would MSNBC want to use an ad like this if it's so wrong? Do you think they don't know what they are doing?
Too bad they had to go to FOXNews to get the model for the neon sign....
Actually it reminded me of Jessica Rabbit and Gilda....
Everyone knows my 1:06 comment was a joke, right?
I mean, it happened ... but I don't care particularly.
Every seen the signs outside certain bars in Wildwood, N.J., even circa 1982?
Hard to get too worked up over this ...
Those of you who are objecting strenuously: what is it about the outlne of a female figure that is disturbing you so much?
That is a loaded question.
I am not sure that anyone is "objecting strenuously" or is "disturbed" by it. A few of us pointed out that it is inappropriate and jarring for a site that is geared towards stuff other than pron. I am not anti-pron. If someone wants to look at pron that's their business.
Let me ask you, Ann. What if there was a blog ad that showed a man's torso with his meat and two veggies outlined, designed solely to titillate. Would that be appropriate for your website? Do you think NYT.com would serve such an ad on their homepage?
Lou, the expression "his meat and two veggies" may not be appropriate for this website. Just kidding. Anyway, I'd say it depends on the picture. All ads are designed to "titillate." Anyone moved sexually to a significant extent by a mere outline of men's genitalia needs to take a cold shower.
They DO?!?
; )
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा