Supplement inappropriate

I was shocked to open my March 30, 2005 Chronicle to find a supplement that was “ advertising” a pro-life stance. I was shocked because regardless of my personal political views, an advertising supplement promoting a specific political agenda has no place in the Chronicle. There were no Bush or Kerry advertisements in the Chronicle last fall, nor would I expect there to have been. Where does the line get drawn? If the amount of money is right, can any organization pay for their propaganda to be distributed with the Chronicle? The Chronicle should remain neutral on political issues, and having a supplement such as the one today makes it seems that the Chronicle supports such views, even if it does not. The fact that the Chronicle will accept money for political, religious or personal agendas to be included with the newspaper is not only disappointing, it shows poor judgment—that money is more important than remaining a valid, impartial news source.

Laura Thomas

Grad ’08