I think we may be asking Randy to put himself between a rock and a hard place, and he didn't start this business to be there. There are few publications that can afford to antagonize advertisers or potential advertisers. Subscription fees NEVER pay for the publication and distribution. The most obvious example of one that doesn't have a commercial constituency is Consumers Union (publishers of Consumer Reports). They don't accept advertising, and they won't even let a product manufacturer buy a lunch for an employee. They can afford to say a product stinks. But they still make a powerful effort to solicit contributions above and beyond their subscriptions. If they didn't do that, they'd be charging 3 or four hundred a year for their little magazine, and they'd be out of business pretty quickly. Fortunately, they get enough contributions to stay in operation. If Randy started bad-mouthing potential advertisers (even to the extent of publishing the results of a lot of critical "surveys of frequent flyers"), he'd be taking a chance of losing their revenue. His alternative? Raise subscription fees, which reduces readership and, therefore, clout, or go non-profit, ala Consumers Union. While I've seen a whole bunch of non-profits up close, I've never seen one where the EMPLOYEES are non-profit; so Randy might consider that alternative, but I doubt it, and I wouldn't want it. How many of you would contribute to the Inside Flyer Foundation if it were truly impartial? And how much?