It's not quite made clear what precisely pains Schell about USA Today's decision, but we can venture a guess. Ads on Page 1 are no different, in terms of editorial corruption, from ads on Page 2. But they're pink flamingos on the steps of the Met. They're unseemly. They're not what our kind of people do. They appear -- to quote the coverage in both the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune -- "cheesy." And I for one applaud USA Today for introducing them.

You could always count on USA Today, of course, to cause the distressed gentlefolk of journalism to reach for their clove-studded oranges: Though it's a perfectly good, and steadily improving, national paper, it is still the newspaper -- the "McPaper," ha, ha! -- that people of quality can breezily disparage among one another. It's owned by Gannett, which has helped homogenize papers nationwide. It contains charts! And sin of sins, it uses color liberally, which is strike three among that thickheaded set for whom an appealing package is sufficient proof of shallowness.

James Poniewozik's column appears in Media, every Monday and Thursday + Biography + Archives

But USA Today's decision is actually conservative and admirable, and not because running ads on a newspaper's front page was common in the 19th century -- so were slavery and foot-binding. Nor because the New York Times itself runs motley classified ads at the bottom of its front page (though it would be a great stride for cultural diversity for readers in Bismarck to have a four-color "JEWISH WOMEN: REMEMBER TO LIGHT CANDLES FOR SHABBAT!" land on their doorsteps). The reason is that it is a blatant and obvious way of grubbing for money.

The greater threat to media independence comes from hidden or camouflaged sources of influence: corporate-owner networks, e-commerce arrangements, advertorial sections, celebrity publicists, marketing deals, online "stores" and sponsorships. Say what you will about ads -- at best, you know they're ads. And media outlets need more cheesy, crass -- that is, easily recognizable -- means of supporting themselves, not fewer.

At least until counterfeiting is legalized, the cash to run media will come either from an independently wealthy publisher or from an outside source, which can always corrupt. (Even funding from the readers comes with strings attached: You challenge your readers' comfortable orthodoxies at your peril. Consider how many political publications thrive on donations and on being "remembered" in wills.) Given that, some forms of corruption are better than others. The more transparent, the better. And you can't get much more transparent than a banner on your front page. If anything, these ads could be a boon, reminding readers graphically -- as they should be reminded -- that the news is made possible by more than their two quarters a day.

Take a look at a newsstand this week. You'll see some examples of what one can put on the front of a publication. For instance: ample reference to, stills from and hype for "The Phantom Menace." That's not advertising -- oh, no! It's simply an exchange of something of monetary value to the publication (readers) for something of monetary value to the filmmaker (viewers) -- but this exchange is news, because, after all, blessedly few people know that a new film in George Lucas' obscure "Star Wars" series is opening next week.

Next page | Stop twisting your knickers over "cheesiness" -- it's a cheesy world