New York Times endorses Hillary Clinton for president, but sexist online ad taints it
The New York Times is one of the most respected news publications. Yeah, some folks call it a liberal propaganda tool, but I disagree with that stereotype. While the paper does tend to lean left, ultimately, it is based on common sense and forward-thinking.
Today, the aforementioned paper endorses Hillary Clinton. While this was totally expected, it is still historic. Why? Because it is backing the first-ever female candidate for president that is representing a major party. When I clicked the link for the article, I was excited to read it -- I have many women in my family, and it made me proud. Unfortunately, my pride quickly turned to disappointment and shame. There, in the middle of the endorsement, was an online advertisement featuring an almost naked woman.
Think about this for a moment. One of the most forward-thinking newspapers is endorsing a person who could end up being the first ever woman president. And yet, in the middle of it, I am seeing a really sexist Burberry perfume advertisement where a woman is in her panties and covering her bare breasts. It is shockingly explicit.
Imagine if a young girl saw this -- what message does it send? America is finally ready to elect a woman to lead the country, and yet the article itself is partially funded by the exploitation of women. Does sex sell? Yes. Is the female body a bad thing? Of course not. But this is the wrong place for such an ad.
I highly doubt the paper would put such an ad on the same page as the printed endorsement. Why should the website have a different standard?
ALSO READ: Google to stream the Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump debates live on YouTube
It is important to mention that The New York Times did not explicitly choose to show this advertisement in the article. Actually, not everyone that reads the online story will see even this particular ad. This is a larger problem with online advertisements, where there is no telling which ad will be served inside of a story. Online advertisements often cycle, and are sometimes based on a user's browsing history. With that said, I have not been doing any online shopping or searching for perfume or cologne.
Unfortunately, this particular ad was shown to me in the worst place possible, tainting what should have been a moment of pride regarding equality and women. Ultimately, The New York Times is responsible for the advertisements it shows -- intent does not matter. Quite frankly, all online news publications should do more to limit the displaying of offensive and sexist ads.
Do you think websites should do more to limit the serving of potentially offensive online ads? Tell me in the comments.