This isn't really a political story, but it does serve as an example of the state of journalism in this country. As Bush and Company pay commentators, hire briefing room shills and profligate fake TV news spots, it's evident in the story I'm about to relate that even seasoned journalists seem to have forgotten the difference between journalism, propaganda and advertising.
I am the editor of a business magazine in Madison, Wisconsin. We heard buzz around town starting in January that the Wisconsin State Journal was starting a monthly business magazine. We welcomed the competitin.
Then we heard some other, more disturbing buzz. James Hopson, publisher of the Wisconsin State Journal, was raising startup money by selling two "Charter Sponsor" packages. Included with one of them was a seat on the new mag's "advisory panel."
I think the chair of the UW journalism school summed it up when he said it "doesn't smell right."
More on the flip.
The Capital Times, the other (and, incidentally, the liberal) daily, is owned by the same company that owns the State Journal. Imagine my surprise, then, when
this story appeared in the Cap Times last week:
Core sponsors of the Wisconsin State Journal's new business publication, the Capital Region Business Journal, will receive unusual access to the editors of the area's largest daily newspaper along with their advertising packages in the new publication, which begins publishing in April. ...
At issue is the difference between two sponsorship packages sold to prominent local businesses. The elite package cost $20,000. The charter package cost $25,000 and includes appointment to the Business Journal's Advisory Board, which includes a guaranteed minimum of six meetings per year with key editors.
The piece quotes Hopson "vigorously defending" his position, which he did again in a memo to State Journal staff, posted at Poynter Forums. (Scroll down, it's the third one.) It says, in part:
Second, when I spoke to candidates for these sponsorships, my pitch was exactly the reverse of selling access. I was asking for their advice. ...
I wanted this advisory board because I wanted advice on the categories of business activity that were most important to cover, on the kinds of topics people would be interested in reading about, on the key measures of regional economic activity, etc. ...
[Irony Alert]One thing they agreed on at our first meeting was that they were not interested in puffery. Other publications in the market invite subject companies to write about themselves, or solicit advertising in exchange for editorial attention. Our advisors find these other publications less than credible or useful because they know that their coverage is for sale. They were emphatic in their disdain for such practices. Quite the opposite of trying to buy influence with us, they wanted to make sure that neither they nor anybody else was going to influence our journalism.
Ok, so here's the thing. My magazine has an advisory panel, too. But we don't charge them to sit on that panel. In fact, we buy them breakfast when they get together. So for Hopson to pat himself on the back for convening this panel is entirely disingenuous.
So, if someone calls Jim or Ellen and says, Hey, I think you need more stories on economic development/transportation/employment/whatever, will Jim or Ellen say, "No, we won't listen to you because you didn't pony up to be on the panel?" No. They're not stupid, nor are they snakes. But I find it impossible to believe that comments and direction from the ones signing the checks will carry a hell of a lot more weight than anyone else's.
Ellen Foley jumped into the fray, too, with an op-ed yesterday:
The panel, designed to have members from businesses and other community groups, became the center of a controversy and fostered a perception of a conflict of interest that I would like to clear up today.
Our advisory panel has met once and those in attendance were business sources who were also advertisers for the publication. ...
A small group of political activists came to our offices last week and suggested that the business panel ensures that our coverage will favor some businesses that advertise with us and will shut out non-profit groups. They argued that by seeking advice from a business panel, we might not be able to continue to tell the truth about the whole community.
Hogwash!
No, Ellen, they argued that by seeking advice from a business panel who had paid to be on that panel, you might not be able to tell the truth about the whole community. And it's not just that some of the people on the panel were advertisers. Some of our advisors also happen to be advertisers, but they don't pay extra to become advisors.
Again, this isn't a political story, though I find it interesting that it's the conservative paper with the questionable practices. But pay-to-play journalism is here, even among what was once to be the Fourth Estate. The only question remaining in my mind with regards to Team Bush's payola/male hooker/propaganda issues is which came first. Have the NeoCons been making the most of slipping journalistic standards? Or has the NeoCons propaganda machine created an environment in which a newspaper publisher can openly sell access and then wonder why people - including real-live journalists like me - get huffy about it.