From time to time we link to Dartblog and we also include it on our blogroll. Written mainly by the two Joes — Malchow and Asch — it provides a lively vehicle for keeping up with aspects of life and the culture wars at Dartmouth and elsewhere.
Recently, Dartblog ran an ad in the “D,” Dartmouth’s student newspaper. The ad, which can be viewed here, said:
Why not try reading Dartblog — for refreshingly well-written news and thought.
When Dartblog attempted to run this ad a second time, the D refused. Its stated reason was that “given that the nature of the ad directly conflicts with the editorial content of The Dartmouth, we have decided to not continue running the Dartblog ads in the newspaper.”
How, though, does “the nature of the ad directly conflict with the editorial content of the Dartmouth”? I can only surmise that the paper read the words “refreshingly well-written” to suggest that its own editorial content falls short of that standard. In this interpretation, “conflicts” means “derides” and “directly” means “indirectly.”
I’m not sure that this is a fair reading of the ad, or what its author (Joe Asch, I think) intended to convey. I am pretty sure that the decision-maker, apparently one JR Santo, is mighty thin-skinned.
Asch, meanwhile, is handling the rejection well. He responds, “We’ll take this petty censorship as a backhand compliment.”
UPDATE:: Joe Asch reports that, “After an amicable, off-the-record conversation yesterday with JR Santo, The Dartmouth’s Publisher,” Dartblog will again be permitted to adverse in the “D.”