To the editors:
I found the March 31 music review [Critic's Choice]--the one letting us know that critics have been "creaming their jeans" about the Go-Betweens--in poor taste. Are you running out of fresh similes and metaphors for our reviews or has the Reader made a new editorial policy to use the stock phrases and cliches of pornographic magazines?
I don't know. But then again, the Reader--open-minded and socially concerned as it is--doesn't seem too concerned about using its ad space for a little pimping and sexual exploitation, considering the many ads for strippers and phone sex (not to mention the personal ads for "clean and discreet" sex partners). I can't see how a newspaper with so many articles crusading against political and social exploitation and reviews pontificating on artistic integrity can continue to run those cheap sex ads. I guess the money feels good in your pocket, though, huh?
Then again, maybe you like the image of bohemian pluralism and laissez-faire that these phone sex and stripper ads lend. Either way, I think you have a major credibility gap. Do you approve of making people into sex objects? I don't think it's a question of my prudishness, I think it's a question of your greed and poor judgment.
I don't see why the women on your staff--or the men with any integrity--put up with these ads. A little healthy feminism would do them good to stiffen their backbones, I think.
You've got a great paper. It's my favorite periodical. But I can't help but think there's someone pretty foolish and unprincipled making advertising policy.