Jackson Jambalaya

Time for the rest of the story. Jackson Free Press publisher Todd Stauffer lambasted the Clarion-Ledger for an alleged attempt to control advertising by local charities:

"Something interesting came to the attention of our advertising sales department during the production of this edition of the Spring Arts and Events Preview. It seems that The Clarion-Ledger is now telling some arts organizations that if they would like The Clarion-Ledger (or, presumably, their subsidiary publications, such as VIP Jackson) to sponsor a non-profit or charity event, then The Clarion-Ledger must be the "exclusive print sponsor" of that event.

In other words, no other print publication can give that non-profit discounted or donated advertising in support of that non-profit's event and be recognized for it.

Now, the Jackson Free Press isn't in a position to donate free advertising often, since selling ads is what pays our (ever-increasing!) bills, but we offer ads to non-profits for their events at sharply reduced rates, and we will frequently increase the size or frequency of the ads that they run when they recognize us as a "logo sponsor" or "media sponsor" of the event..." Column

Well, let met tell you the rest of the story. Sources at the Clarion-Ledger told this correspondent their version of what took place. A certain local non-profit that operates a well-known annual film festival in Jackson and also has Mr. Stauffer sitting on its advisory board (according to its website) approached the newspaper advertising the festival.* The newspaper tentatively agreed to provide free advertising in exchange for media sponsorship. So far, so good. Then the newspaper finds out that the festival is paying the JFP to insert flyers in an upcoming issue. Well, being the capitalist pigs they are, they didn't care too much for the festival paying another publication to advertise while they asked the newspaper to provide advertising for free while both were listed as media sponsors. That is where the so-called exclusive angle came in to play.

The CL said if they were going to play this game, then they expected to have exclusive print advertising. Think about it. They are expected to donate advertising while the charity pays a competitor and same charity is going to give the paid competitor equal billing for the event. From each according to his means....... Sources said the only policy the CL had on this matter said if a charity treats all media sponsors the same for an event, it has no problem advertising the event-whether they are paid or not paid. However, the rub comes in where one is paid and one is not but are given equal billing for the event.

A little bit different than what is portrayed in Mr. Stauffer's column. I have nothing against Mr. Stauffer, really don't. However, when he writes a column such as this one and sources I consider to be equally credible tell me a different story, I think their side deserves to be heard.

*I'm not mentioning the name of the festival as its a good cause and I do not want to see their name sullied in google searches when they don't have much to do with this story.