|
|
|
Getting Up with Fleas
|
Business New Haven
4/2/2001
By: BNH
|
When media entities form dubious “partnerships” with public or private organizations they are supposed to “cover,” truth and objectivity are often the first victims.
Take, for example, the “Connecticut Tech Tribune,” a biweekly supplement to the Connecticut Law Tribune that debuted in February. One of the first deals forged by the business managers of the new supplement was with the Connecticut Technology Council (CTC), which lobbies state government on behalf of the technology-based companies that comprise its membership.
That's all fine and dandy if you think of the CTC as a kind of niche CBIA for the tech sector. But the way its alliance with the new publication plays out in the eyes of readers stinks and ought to cast serious aspersions in the eyes of readers about the Law Tribune's credibility in “covering” technology companies.
The deal itself is simple: the technology council pays the Law Tribune for a page in the “Connecticut Tech Tribune.” This is known as selling advertising. Except that, not only is that fact not acknowledged in the publication - it is actively disguised.
The page (page five, by the way - prime real estate in the publishing business) of CTC news looks like any other page in the publication - same typeface size and font, same everything. A reader has to squint pretty well to see in small type the legend, “This space provided by the Connecticut Tech Tribune.” That in itself seems deliberately misleading, since of course every page in the publication is “provided” by the Connecticut Tech Tribune. What the page should say, right at the top in can't-miss type, is ADVERTISEMENT. Because that's what it is.
Because it is in league with the technology sector's chief lobbying group, is it reasonable for us to expect critical reporting from the Tech Tribune about, say, CTC members? We doubt it.
To be fair, there's enough guilt to go around, since both the Law Tribune and the CTC plainly have collaborated on the presentation of the latter's ad message. We likewise fault the “Connecticut” Technology Council for sending its members' dollars out of state: The Connecticut Law Tribune is published by a New York company, American Lawyer Media.
In a similar vein are the “boards of advisors” touted by other publications, such as CT Business Magazine, larded with top brass from some of their largest advertisers. How can readers expect publications to report objectively about organizations on which they are financially dependent?
Because we believe in level playing fields, we encourage readers and advertisers to exercise vigilance over dubious “alliances” thatinfluence the content of the editorial messages they digest.
For most of the 20th century, permitting advertisers to influence content stood atop the list of publishing's seven deadly sins. But the so-called Chinese wall between editorial and advertising has begun to erode in some publishing sectors. Does anybody expect to see an article criticizing Pierre Cardin's fall line in Vogue?
By virtue of the wonderful mechanism known as the First Amendment, government is proscribed from governing the media - permitting it to function as the “people's police” over their own governments. So, who is left to police the people's police?
The answer is clear: readers and advertisers, who in 2001 have more media choices than the Founding Fathers could have imagined. We urge readers, confronted with a cacophony of contradictory media messages, to consider the source when a media outlet is beholden to a particular group or industry.
We likewise urge advertisers to carefully consider the editorial environment in which they place their messages. After all: If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
|
Go FirstGo PreviousGo
NextGo LastGo
to Index
|
|
