The Dirty Secret of Magazine Journalism
As I thumb through the current issues of Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, The New York Times Magazine, and The Washington Post Magazine, I’m shocked to discover that between their covers editorial content is placed alongside aesthetically pleasing messages from corporations! Apparently large companies are being offered exclusive “pay-to-play” magazine real estate to influence the readers of these publications. The leadership at each organization insists that decisions about which corporations are allowed to advertise are made by business staff, not editorial employees. Even so, it is inevitable that the writers and editors at these publications discover who is subsidizing their work each time they flip through their own articles.
I am shocked — SHOCKED! — to learn that MARKETING is going on in these parts!
— Erik Vanderhoff · Jul 8, 09:19 PM · #
It wasn’t a very well-kept secret. I used to be marketing director for a healthcare facility and we set up displays at conferences, work-shops and seminars — they charged us an arm and a leg, then, in the lounges, after hours, ridiculed our undignified marketing (I would overhear them). They never stopped to think we, and others like us, paid for the space in which the dignified speakers pontificated.
— mike farmer · Jul 8, 11:53 PM · #
come on. there is a vast difference between magazine ads and private off-the-record sponsored salons. its rather like campaign financing – registered donations are fine, but gigantic, secret slush funds not so much so. i suppose that’s a little bit of an unfair comparison, but much like politics, the watchword of ethical journalism should be transparency. advertising is transparent, salons a lot less so, especially when everything other than their existence, is off the record.
— nav · Jul 9, 09:19 AM · #
So WaPo brokering meetings between lobbyists and politicians is analogous to Time brokering advertising between advertisers and…itself?
Or are we to imagine that it is the Post’s mandate to bring lobbyists and politicians together in the same way advertising firms bring sponsors and publications together?
— Blar · Jul 9, 01:44 PM · #
Perhaps we should call these salons what they are:
escort services for the rich and powerful who are seeking companionship among “cultural” elites (i.e. the media).
If that’s what you’re vaguely alluding to anyway – it’s not clear.
I’d love to hang out, learn, and talk too, if I could afford it, but by the ignorance of the editors or dishonesty of the business staff, or the collusion of both, the ware was tainted and the price excessive.
— Abler · Jul 9, 06:50 PM · #
Conor, would you feel differently if it turned out that the WP and the Atlantic was regularly accepting payments for unpublished ads from corporations, and didn’t want to share the contents of the ads with the public because it’s so hard to get an honest ad these days?
It’s hard to get the analogy quite right – maybe it should be that Obama policy people have promised to read the secret ads, and corporate lobbyists pay the Atlantic to deliver the secret ads to Obama policy people, but the Altantic won’t tell us who is paying or which Obama people are getting the ads. They also won’t tell us what is in the ads because it’s so hard to get honest dialogue going between lobbyists and governement officials when the public can see what’s going on.
— J Mann · Jul 9, 06:58 PM · #
I realize that my post was vague, but here’s all I was trying to say: there are all sorts of business realities that could theoretically hurt the objectivity of journalists. Advertising is one of them — the one we’re the most accustom to. The Washington Post salons and The Atlantic salons are other revenue streams that could theoretically influence editorial content. Are the salons somehow more corrupting than advertising? It’s actually unclear to me which is more problematic, though I think both are perfectly reasonable approaches (though I do think the clients should be disclosed).
In general, my feeling is that whatever revenue stream is theoretically most ideal, what you really want to make sure of is that there are lots of different revenue streams, so that a publication isn’t too reliant on any single source. If an advertiser or salon participant or whatever can bankrupt you by leaving, that’s when you’ll see business influence creep into a publication.
On the other hand, if you’re just one company among many that has some sort of business relationship with a publication, you’re unlikely to be able to sway its editorial employees to give you special treatment.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jul 9, 07:18 PM · #
I think you’re right. I don’t really have a problem with any of these policies – it’s the secrecy that surrounded them that looks bad, especially when publications pretend there is no possible effect or influence that might come from them.
It isn’t a terrible idea for increasing revenues and supplementing advertising and subscription funds, and if these functions were made more transparent and public it seems a lot of good writing and understanding could come of it.
I say open the doors, engage, and allow for the influence – but just be completely open about it. Why not make these things more productive for the magazine? More like the Aspen Ideas Convention, or the TNR cruises, and less like a cabal. Let the readers see the influence itself and make up their own minds about it.
The whole “scandal” aspect seems to stem more from journalists unnecessary insistence that their art is a science that can somehow remain above influence, bias, and arguments while still reporting completely honest, thorough, and interesting.
If this myth could finally be dismantled I think there would be more readership for everyone all across the spectrum. Most readers just want the product to match the picture on the box.
These salon events would have been disclosed, and maybe even proudly advertised if media outlets could let go of the idea that they are somehow an integral institution of democratic government and a sacred “estate” that polices officials and other institutions solely for common good, with no skin in the game at all. If this pretense could be dropped (that a free press is essential partly because it is disinterested, but still officially part of the system somehow), I think journalism in general would become much more profitable, constructive, and readable.
— Abler · Jul 9, 08:22 PM · #
Abler,
I don’t think these Salons were secret, were they?
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jul 9, 08:41 PM · #
Conor,
They were secret enough for me, the casual reader, not to be aware of them until now. I don’t mean there was any sort of active cover-up, but there certainly seems to be some of the shame and defensiveness about these events that often attends things people wish were not so well publicized.
“For a storied newspaper that cherishes its reputation for ethical purity, this comes pretty close to a public relations disaster.”
Why? Because of appearances – what was not so apparent to anyone, and then became apparent. And because I think papers and journals are a bit too attached to reputations of “ethical purity.”
No secret exists in a vacuum – by definition some person or group already knows it.
So I’d say the Post salons were a “secret” in the sense that no one currently at the paper reported it beforehand (that I know of).
As far as the Atlantic goes, you tell me – were the existence of these events pretty widely promulgated, or just among certain circles that never took the time to inform everyone else?
Personally, I don’t even mind if they are completely off-the-record, but certainly there are ways to report what is officially off the record in some way.
I guess most people just don’t like even the appearance of “influence” on the integrity of reporting.
I don’t care so much about that (and I assume that anyone with an inquiring mind is influenced by other minds), but I still would be very interested to know as much as possible about it from those with the most knowledge about it.
And though I don’t share any of their outrage, it seems only natural that others would smell something fishy when they find out about it from outside the publications themselves.
— Abler · Jul 9, 09:15 PM · #
Conor, when you say
you show where your analogy limps. We expect advertisers and publications to have business relationships because they are both businesses. But we don’t like to think that our politicians are anything like a business, or a product (though cynics can try to deflate this). For the WaPo to be so brazen about selling access to politicians as though it was a product is what stinks to people.
I would also add that advertising in publication is necessarily overt, since you can usually tell who is buying advertising by looking at the ad. These private salons are going to be more covert, unless the parties involved make a concerted effort to publicize who met with whom, and what was discussed.
— Blar · Jul 9, 09:50 PM · #
I guess the question is, why are people paying the Atlantic and the WP $25,000 a seat to go to these salons? (I understand why they buy advertisements in the paper).
1) They are civic minded, and think these salons are a great public good.
2) They want to increase their own social status.
3) The conversation is just that good.
4) They are lobbyists, and are paying for inside access to government officials.
Some of how innocent you think the salons are depends on what you think about the motives. #s 1 and 2 are basically the reason someone might drop $25K a year to be on the ballet board of directors, and are basically innocent. #4 means that the Atlantic is basically a panderer for influence and access peddling.
You are right, I guess, that even if #4 is true, the Atlantic and WP might be able to pimp out Obama administration officials and the journals’ other connections without losing their journalistic objectivity.
But (A) it would still be wrong and (B) it would raise objectivity concerns – by showing up at one of the WP salons for one night, the Obama health care team was basically giving the WP and under the table payment of $50,000. Yes, there are other ways in which the WP might be compromised (particularly by preferential access and sourcing), but that’s not a reason not to scrutinize this pressure point as well.
— J Mann · Jul 10, 03:31 PM · #