A new post on Contently discusses the erosion of the wall between advertising/business and editorial at newspapers and magazines — sometimes called the church/state wall — and what effect it will have on editorial independence and how the media cover stories.
Several of the media managers quoted interpret this as whether reporters and editors should even be aware of the business side of things and how it workswhich automatically makes my hackles rise. I agree with them that’s extreme and unreasonable (like the argument reporters shouldn’t even vote because it compromises their impartiality), but I’ve never heard the “church/state wall” defined that way (insert obvious point that it’s quite possible the definition is used and I just missed it). It’s always been that advertising should not dictate what gets covered, and that some things are worth covering even if they don’t make the paper popular. By ignoring that side (as publisher Bryan Goldberg does in a linked Pando piece), I think the quotees are fudging.
As Contently notes, this isn’t a new issue. Cigarette companies have for years exerted their advertising influence to keep magazines from publishing anti-smoking pieces. Chrysler in the 1990s (IIRC) had begun demanding magazines provide an exact list of articles in each issue before the company would place any ads, just in case they didn’t like the lineup. Conversely the Destin Log has run advertorials, and the real-estate section tended very heavily to fluff when I was there (see this cool house! Meet this awesome Realtor!) and I imagine still does (this is why we all took turns writing for that section—nobody wanted the gig full-time). Back when publishers were individuals and not corporations, plenty of publishers would pursue personal vendettas. And MSNBC fired talk-show host Phil Donahue a little over a decade ago because even though he was there top-rated show, his show took an anti-Iraq War stance and the network was terrified it would alienate viewers.
The fact the issue has been around a long time doesn’t make it any less serious. If the media don’t cover important issues because some advertiser threatens to yank their ads, or because in-depth analysis of war profiteering generates fewer page views than shopping tips, that’s a loss for everyone except the advertisers (and the ad department). Advertorials by themselves aren’t harmful but if the reader can’t tell them from a news story, that is.
I automatically (and possibly unfairly) distrust someone who discusses church/state without bringing that aspect up.
