How come The Times refuses to advertise sex movies but sells page after page of advertising to violent movies?
How come The Times refuses to review or even list sex movies, but regularly sends its first-string reviewers out to tsk-tsk violent movies?
Is it that "phallic violence" offends The Times' values but that violence achieved by guns and knives a la Cobra and Rambo honors, supports, or illustrates The Times' values?
Exactly what are The Times' values?
According to a Times advertising spokesman, The Times tries to reflect contemporary social values and publishes things that can be seen elsewhere throughout the community. The Times' has an Advertising Review Board that screens every ad to make sure it is suitable. It has often totally refused ads or has had advertisers tone down their ads before accepting them. Ads for X-rated films were dropped in 1978 by then-publisher Otis Chandler, who felt pornography had no place in The Times.