Open Letter to Adbusters

Kalle Lasn
Hello, this is David Cohn. I have had the opportunity
to speak with you in the past. I interviewed you about Buy Nothing Day
for a Q and A published on Wired News only a few months ago. During that
conversation I expressed to you that I am a big fan of Adbusters and
have been for some time. In fact, I’ve bought every issue for the last
two years. So it saddens me to write this letter.

The #64 issue of Adbusters was not at all up
to par. There were several issues I had with the magazine, but I’ll
address the two overarching themes, which failed to meet my
expectations, in this letter. I bring them up not to complain or go
on a diatribe (which I notice many letters to the editor take) but
because I want Adbusters (and projects like Adbusters) to succeed  —
and I don’t think it will if these problems persist.

The first was simply a  technical issue. I can overlook small
grammatical errors, especially if there is only one in a full magazine.
But this issue was riddled with phantom words, grammatically incorrect
sentences and simple mistakes that any copy editor should be able to
catch. I stopped counting the mistakes at 16. As Adbusters grows in its
sphere of influence it has a duty to make the issues that it raises
seem legitimate to the mainstream media. But publishing a magazine that
has multiple mistakes makes the magazine appear to be run by amateurs
promoting fanciful ideas. If you need a copy editor, feel free to
contact me. I’d be happy to discuss the job. But you cannot put out a
serious magazine that does not take accurate and effective
communication seriously. There is just no excuse.

More egregious than this, however, was the tone of the
magazine.  Yes, the issues were the same (or similar) as past issues,
but the ethos of this Adbusters was different. This issue was not about
shaking or adding to the common liberal sentiment, but restating it.
All that was achieved in this issue was spouting back already accepted
memes by safe and practical authors. By reprinting essays that were
published in The Nation and Harpers you weren’t even apologizing for
your lack of imagination, you were dwelling in it. If I want to know
what the elite liberals of America think, I’ll go to the Nation or The
New Republic, not Adbusters â?? this is not your niche and I hope you
recognize that. I turn to Adbusters for new and exciting ideas.
Moreover, these ideas are usually dished out in artistic and creative
means â?? using design itself to convey the message. But this issue was
dull, dry and repetitive. After each formulaic essay there was a box
with the author’s photo that gave their credentials and cited where the
essay was originally published. Where is the imagination, where is the
rebel rousing ingenuity that has made past issues of Adbusters so
unique and controversial?

In short, this magazine did not appear to be — as you claim — about “a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters,
students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new
social activist movement of the information age.” That For Us By Us mentality and inspiration was absent. Instead I felt I was being spoon fed ideas by the cultural elite.

If this is the path that Adbusters is going to take, I see a
very quick downfall for your media organization. Your niche is in the
controversial,  artistic and unique. That is what drew my eye to your
magazine and what has kept its gaze for so long. But this last issue was bland and safe. Next issue I’ll pick up the magazine, but I can’t say I’ll buy it — please prove me wrong.