A Mystery Tale: Jack Gargan's Newspaper Ad

PHONES here rang off the hook in several offices (including mine) last Monday - all day - when KING 1090 Radio's morning talk-show host Jim Althoff interviewed Florida grassroots political activist Jack Gargan. Gargan said The Times refused to print an ad for his group.

The ad encourages voters to throw out all incumbents, whom he blames for savings-and-loan losses of $500 billion that taxpayers are expected to pay.

It also makes a pitch for donations to his organization, T.H.R.O., Inc. (Throw The Hypocritical Rascals Out).

KING listeners were furious that this message, one also carried by Times columnist John Hinterberger, was not published in the form of an ad.

A mystery that could have been solved with a simple response from Times advertising director Marji Ruiz (who was out of town Monday, back on Tuesday), became a full-blown mini-series of ``Who killed Jack Gargan's ad and why?'' between the advertising department and my office.

``So, why won't The Times print it?'' asked more than 125 fuming callers.

Some provided their own answers. ``I bet The Times has received a lot of heat from politicians,'' insisted one man, noting that 91 other newspapers have reportedly carried the ads.

Ruiz later said no politicians had mentioned it.

Since the ad had been submitted and dealt with more than a month earlier, it had virtually been forgotten by the advertising staff.

In an effort to respond as rapidly as possible to media, there was some second guessing. Actually, there was a lot of second guessing. An advertising-department assistant gave me the copy of an ad policy citing that potentially ``libelous or derogatory content which cannot be substantiated'' can be refused.

But no one was specifically named in Gargan's ad, so that excludes libel - and the application of that policy.

Then it was surmised that since it was an out-of-state organization, there was no way to protect Washington state investors. The copy of the Gargan ad sent to The Times has no nonprofit-corporation identification number on it.

Classified-ad manager Mike Lemke, sitting in for Ruiz, was put on the hot seat. Trying to be responsive, he acknowledged that the ad might have been rejected for those reasons, but that Ruiz had the answers.

While KING radio morning host Althoff said he was surprised by Gargan's statement of The Times refusal, afternoon host Mike Siegel made the newspaper-ad issue the focus of his show Monday, and asked me to respond to outraged listeners and readers.

I told him my concern as Reader Advocate is to try to see that policies are upheld uniformly and fairly for all advertisers, and it would not appear that this was the case for this particular ad (for the reasons I cited above), but again, that Ruiz had the final say.

I also explained the complete separation of advertising and news, here, and challenged him to see if KING would accept the ad - put in a broadcast format, of course. He said he would ask KING's sales staff and surmised that it might - and then again, it might not be broadcast.

At last, Ruiz returned (phones continued to ring Tuesday). ``The only reason Jack Gargan's ad was not run is because the information on his out-of-state nonprofit corporation, which we require from every out-of-state advertiser soliciting funds, was not supplied to us,'' she said.

What?! After all the turmoil, telephones and to-do, this is the reason?

There are a couple of things to be learned from this dilemma. First, it's a good idea to tag an ad with a status note (which is ordinarily done at The Times), indicating why it has not been accepted.

Second, it's wise to wait until the person with the answers is contacted or can present the information first-hand. In a fervent attempt to tell what happened, the only information we passed on was what could have happened.

Contacted as his home in Tampa, Gargan said he had not communicated with The Times, that his ad is being handled by an advertising agency, Newspapers First. ``I am surprised by this,'' said Gargan, when he was told The Times did not receive the necessary nonprofit corporation data, ``because Newspapers First has successfully placed the ad in several other states.''

Gargan said Newspapers First will resubmit the ad. Ruiz says when it is received, it will be published in both The Times and the P-I, provided all the necessary information is provided. Siegel allowed me to explain this to his listeners Tuesday.

Still another advertising issue: A Times reporter erroneously heard that The Times refuses ads for condoms. Untrue. The Times has already carried ads for prophylactics. ``But,'' adds Times president Mason Sizemore, ``we do require that the advertisements be tasteful. We have rejected condom ads which we considered too graphic, but we are always willing to consider advertisements for them.''

I hope Times readers agree with the importance of advertising a product that is the primary method used to prevent Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, as well as other sexually transmitted diseases.

Questions? Call the Reader Advocate at 464-8979 or write: P.O. Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111.