No_One wrote:

>
> This will sound pretentious, I don't read online mags. I prefer real ink
> and paper publications. Someone has spent real money for ink, paper and
> distribution. An investment has been made. On that basis alone, it has
> value.
>

I don't know. That 'investment' has to be paid back. I learned this VERY
early in my writing career.

I was a first-year student (they didn't (still don't?) use the words
'freshman, sophomore,' etc.') at U. of Virginia in 1965-66 and worked on
one of the quarterly 'commentary' magazines published by and for students.

Around that time, a book was published by an unknown writer named Ralph
Nader ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed ) that took grave
issue with the safety of the popular Chevy Corvair and General Motors'
advance knowledge about same. I wanted to do a review of the book along
with a hard-hitting sidebar on the importance of car safety as it related
to students who bought cars (or who's parents bought them.) The editor
nixed the story. Whom do you think bought the largest ads in the magazine?
The local car dealers. Without their ads, the magazine (which was
non-profit with a budget of around $3,000, if that) would fold.

In many of the smaller, regional papers, if you took away the car and food
advertising, their doors would close. As for the large media chains? Well,
why did it take so long for them to 'discover' that Celebrex and Bextra and
other similar cox-2 drugs were 'bad.' Maybe because the pharmaceutical
companies spent hundreds of millions on print and electronic
advertisements? You make the call.

You are welcome to believe in the honesty and integrity of our media. Don't
forget about the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and how Microsoft is really a
good corporate citizen that plays fair with their competitors.

Al