INDEPENDENT SPEECH AND TOBACCO ADS

``I WAS shocked and absolutely thrilled to read about the Mercury's
decision'' (to reject tobacco ads), Gay J. Crawford of Saratoga wrote.
``As a 25 year cancer survivor and volunteer with the American Cancer
Society, I thank you.''

Most people who commented on the decision, announced Wednesday, said
similar things -- some adding that we should also ban all gun
advertising. But one accused us of being ``ever-so-politically-correct''
and went on:

``Last I heard, tobacco was a legal substance. In fact, it is a good
source of tax revenue for the bloated federal government which you
tout so slavishly. By your banning tobacco ads, I guess you
journalists know what is best for us. Oh please, protect us from
ourselves!''

Well, tobacco taxes do help support the government, the sale of
tobacco is legal, and generally we do accept advertising for legal
products, not just because ads bring in revenue, but also because we
believe in free speech.

But newspaper publishers and editors always have exercised judgment
about what is, as the New York Times says, ``fit to print.'' The
Mercury News does not accept ads for fireworks, massage parlors, and
certain types of guns. Nor do we accept political advertising in which
candidates make what we know to be false accusations about their opponents.

The First Amendment in no way suggests that we must print everything.
Consider this parallel on the news pages. You have a free speech right
to say virtually anything, with a few very limited exceptions. But the
First Amendment certainly does not require that we quote everything
you say.

When we did accept tobacco ads, I got complaints from readers who felt
it was hypocritical when our editorials argued that smoking is
harmful. I understood the incongruity, but I tried to explain that we
make a point of separating business decisions from editorial policy.

The same readers would have been horrified if our publication of
tobacco ads had meant we were not free to discuss the health hazards
of smoking in our editorials. I would have been horrified, too.

Newspapers are businesses, obliged to make a profit for our
shareholders. We also have special rights and obligations under the
First Amendment. The public service role of a newspaper and its
moneymaking role don't necessarily conflict, but they can.

Keeping editorial policy independent of business considerations is one
of the tests of a newspaper's integrity. It can be costly. The Miami
News went out of business during a boycott by grocery advertisers who
were angered by a critical news story. Car dealers once joined forces
to withhold their ads from this paper.

I'm proud of our advertising people, and of Publisher Jay T. Harris,
the one person responsible for all parts of the paper, for their
decision to stop running tobacco ads.

It wasn't done to conform to our editorial position. But it is in
keeping with a fundamental shift in our society's view of smoking and
health. Gay Crawford said in her letter that ``ten years ago, we would
never have believed this.'' She's right.

Rob Elder is editor of the Mercury News and a former pipe, cigar and
cigarette smoker.