Widely respected uber blogger Steve Rubel has an item today talking about his impression of what he calls the "strict church-state wall" that separates the editorial and advertising sides of the media business. He thinks this is true in the main and that it's purpose is to protect the freedom of the press.

I don't think there's always much of a wall, nor do I think this basic rule of ethics ever had anything to do with freedom of the press. A newspaper's decision to take money from an advertiser or not, or to write favorably or negatively about an advertiser isn't about free speech. It's about free trade and a free conscience. It is about credibility and conflict of interest and it's about capitalism. When a newspaper decides to take an advertiser's money, and then decides to routinely write nice things about the advertiser, they devalue their product but not the Constitution or anyone's freedom of the press. One exception (there may be others) could be theorized on the basis of government-funded sponsorship/advertising on a scale that its withdrawal would bankrupt a publication. But I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

In contrast to Mr. Rubel's view and experience in these matters, my own thirty year history as a newspaper reporter, corporate communications person, and PR agency executive would suggest the wall separating editorial from advertising is easily and often navigated. The wall can be scaled; it is porous. 

As a reporter, after covering hard news all week, my weekend assignments would include things like covering an event at a mall sponsored by… fill in advertiser's name here. My managing editor gave me these assignments. My managing editor probably got his assignments from the publisher. One assignment in particular I recall was an ice cream eating contest. Trust me, I didn't take the gluttony angle. The ice cream was provided by an advertiser.

Late last year in an "editorial" meeting with a "respected" trade publication group, my client was promised staff-written coverage in the magazine in return for an advertising commitment. Locally, a major Boston-area metro daily has omitted the name and address of a conflagration when it has involved the retail premises of a major advertiser. Further, it's been my experience that the annual editorial calendars routinely produced by trade publications are primarily designed and developed to optimize the magazine's appeal to lucrative advertising targets.

Am I surprised by this or put off by it. Not particularly. It seems to me that this is a "freedom of the reader" issue. The reader is free to accept or reject any editorial news or views based on whether or not he or she sees an apparent conflict of interest and credibility problem involving a major advertiser and a major suck up on the part of independent-thinking journalists working on the other side of this fabled wall. Two, business is business. Traditional media is fighting for its very existence. The practice isn't new.

Purists will say I'm being ridiculous because the media has an obligation, in fairness, to disclose its relationship and motives concerning advertisers. First, that's baloney. Short of inquiries into matters of legality (bribes, libel, slander, etc.) newspapers, for example, are under no more of an obligation to disclose this sort of thing about their business than any other private enterprise. Two, disclosure is hardly necessary for anyone paying attention. It's all right there in black and white, and red all over.

Share This