I write in response to your request for opinions on the amount of supplemental advertising currently carried by The Rappahannock News.
During a recent visit to the Rappahannock News offices, I had a conversation with the editor that turned eventually to the newspaper’s call for local input, its new attitude, open-door policy and desire to really be part of the local community. As I was leaving, as the newspaper had recently published a story about county recycling efforts, I gently pointed out that their publication probably contributed more to the landfill than any other local business.
So it was with surprise and delight that I read the editorial [Jan. 28] calling for opinions on supplemental advertising and the offer of the publication to forgo its profits from supplemental advertising and cut down on its contribution to the landfill.
Do the majority of people even read these supplements? Couldn’t they be posted in the publication’s online edition? Surely there must be other solutions to the problem? I am sure there are some in Rappahannock who use and depend on the coupons that are enclosed and use them to reduce their food bill, but shouldn’t this be a situation where common good overrides individual convenience?
I’ve always thought of supplemental advertising as part of the advertising industry’s long arm of influence and nothing more than a tool to prop up greedy publishers. Take a look at The Washington Post!
If you care about waste in Rappahannock and are concerned about corporate greed, advertising, and the local landfill . . . it would seem, at least for now, your opinion is requested.
As for the publishers: Encore, encore.