By "tighter system" do they mean a simple web search? Or perhaps just using some common sense? Because if the name of that organization does not set of alarm bells, then the website certainly would.
MrSammo | Homepage | 07.02.08 - 7:11 pm | #

In 2005 America Magazine published an ad called "Extra Virgin", by Steve Rosenthal. It was a blatent spoof and anti-Catholic at its core. The name, "Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice" is at face value, a highly suspicious name and should easily pop up on the radar as "odd" or "strange". I can't imagine America Magazine is that desperate for cash flow that it just brokers out its mailing list so easily? The ten Jesuit provincials are the "Board of Directors" of America. They are ultimately responsible for the editorial content and business practices of the magazine. Negligence is and can be a proof, of a lack of professionalism. If you look at America Magazine in its totality over the course of the last ten years it can be described editorialy as overtly a leftist magazine, it is not a fair representation of the Society as a whole, nor can it claim to be a mirror of the Catholic Church in the United States. It is curently in the bag for Obama, and seeks to gloss over Obama's lack of sympathy for the the unborn and the just born by accident(As evidenced by Sean Winters posts). If one is to read the recently released the decrees of the GC35, one can surmise that an editorial sift is in the making. The current state of America Magazine is a far cry from the days of old (loosely defined as pre-Reese) when it staunchly defended the Church, Jesus Christ from secular forces and walked with the Holy Father. America Magazine should be big enough and brave enough to be able bring in a stable of conservative writers to balance out the rigid fundamentalism currently found within the pages of America Magazine.
Joseph Fromm | Homepage | 07.02.08 - 10:16 pm | #

Well, it could be that the precise person who made the deal knew about the organization, but others didn't find out till later. That would be my charitable stance on the matter. Of course, they need better oversight, and more trustworthy employees.
Eileen R | 07.03.08 - 12:58 am | #

PS. Why were they selling the mailing list in the first place? I know it's common practice, but how can a Catholic magazine pass it off as ethical? The subscribers to America haven't requested the disposition of their addresses to anyone with a wad of cash, have they?
Eileen R | 07.03.08 - 1:00 am | #

Father Martin was contrite and promised to fix the problem pronto. Progress. What is there not to be happy about this?
Peter H. | 07.03.08 - 11:07 am | #

Eileen, I slightly disagree with that. When I subscribed to a conservative magazine, I was always happy to recieve the direct mail that was sent to me because of it, and it was always somewhat relevant to my interests. I didn't consider it to be spam.

Then again, I've never minded direct mail solicitations ever. Why get credit monitoring when you can tell how you're doing by the quality of unsolicited credit offers you get?
Joe Marier | 07.03.08 - 2:14 pm | #

Contrite? As much as he STILL endorses, Jesuit OFFICIAL honoring of pro-abortion Fr. Drinan in Georgetown.

See my quote in the InsideCatholic: he called that a mere "disagreement with him" on the issue, and supports IT because... he was "his friend & brother in Christ" (sic).

Commend that as "Jesuit moral authority".
Guillermo Bustamante | 07.03.08 - 2:18 pm | #

I sympathize with your point, Guillermo, but on this matter I think Peter H is spot on.
Mike Petrik | 07.03.08 - 4:22 pm | #

While it may be distressing to those who receive any literature from the Pro-aborts, I know if I received such a mailing, it would put a fire under me and awaken my sense of the battle we are in.
CatholicCourage.com | Homepage | 07.03.08 - 5:57 pm | #

I would think that pro-lifers would be pleased that the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice wasted some of its funds mailing materials to those who were definitely unresponsive to its message.
L. | Homepage | 07.03.08 - 6:03 pm | #

Thank you, L. I concur.

I wonder if any of the recipients of said mailings simply took the postage-paid reply envelopes, sealed them and dropped them in the mailbox, thus requiring RCRC to expend even more of its funds to pay for delivery of all those empty envelopes.

I also wonder why RCRC wanted to rent America's list. Since they did, does this suggest that the magazine has (or at least claims to have) a significant number of pro-choice readers?
C.J. | 07.03.08 - 9:28 pm | #

As someone who has worked in the publishing field, and who currently owns a printing company who does bulk mailings, I can tell you all that you are vastly overestimating the amount of thought that goes into these things.

You would be amazed at the terrible lists people buy and sell (I mean, the state of the data on the lists -- sometimes more than a decade old), and you would be astonished by the frequent lack of any real attempt to tell if buying a particular list is a good idea or not. Many thousands of dollars are wasted by professionals buying and selling lists, even in the largest companies.

It's possible that RCRC knows that America's readership contains a high number of pro-choice people -- but it's far more probable that someone on the RCRC staff heard somewhere that the magazine is "pretty liberal" and thought they might as well give it a try.

That's my professional opinion.
Gail F | 07.04.08 - 3:37 pm | #

Gee, a direct mailing behemoth I'm aware of treats list purchasing as if it involves more precision than rocket science. The return on investment (and I use the term loosely) always made me question that assertion, but I was brushed off as a big dummy. Thanks for confirming a long-held suspicion.
C.J. | 07.05.08 - 9:27 am | #

C.J.:

It certainly can be done well. If you want to pay to get and vet a good list, and maybe even get phone salespeople to qualify the names and positions the mailing goes to (a friend of mine's company does just this, and has generated huge sales increases for its customers), you can really find and target people. But my point is that a LOT of people don't do even the most basic of these things, or even pay much attention to what lists they buy. You can buy lists out of catalogs without knowing much about them.

For instance, we buy lists for some of our customers, and we run them through Post Office lists to certify that they are "good" addresses (soon, all bulk mailings will be required to do this by law). You would be amazed at the amount of bad addresses companies have listed for THEIR OWN CUSTOMERS. In other words, they don't even know who their customers are, they just maintain huge computerized out-of-date lists of people. And then other people buy the lists and mail to them.

I don't know how often "America" sells its list, or who on the staff is in charge of the requests when they come in. But the request could very well have come from a mailing company or fulfillment house, and not from the RCRC at all.
Gail F | 07.05.08 - 9:48 am | #

As a pro-lifer who subscribes to America magazine, I'm glad to see Fr. Jim address this so directly.
Paul Snatchko | Homepage | 07.06.08 - 1:37 am | #