Posted to good.is regarding their sale of advertising to certain advertisers who do not support or the overall ethos of the mag.
You've struck upon the difficult truth of orgs and brands. Individuals don't always have the same association to a given brand. It's fair to say the United Methodists do a large amount of social good, but there are GOOD readers who've had bad experiences with the organization. RL is probably the opposite: generally bad influence on society as a whole, but of course there also are wonderful well meaning people working within the business, and therefore likely GOOD readers who see RL as a positive brand.
Brands then become "good" or "bad" depending on experience.
Bottom line, I do agree that GOOD's policy of neutrality towards their income sources runs counter to their ethos and isn't going to work in the long run. Just by saying that you're "doing good" means you'll be making some controversial decisions at some point in time. The question then is what IS the new business model/mag ethos that best represents people who "give a damn?"