Apparently, he has a connection to the TVA that might taint any reporting he ever does on them.

Of course, he bought an ad from me, so this link is pure corruption. (Or would be, if his entry weren't funny.)

* * *

Seriously, the issue is sticky. I've worked for a lot of magazines, and there is almost always some kind of relationship between advertising and editorial. Rarely have I seen the kind of "wall" built between the two that I think we'd all like to think is there. Some things, however, are over the line:

• A publisher declaring that a line of products cannot be mentioned in a magazine, because the company behind them failed to buy any ad pages (really, I've heard of this happening);

• A publisher mandating that reviews of advertisers' products must be positive;

• A radio commentator taking money from the executive branch of the government in order to push their agenda;

• A cable channel taking money from the executive branch of the government to promote drug abstinence;

• A blogger failing to disclose his financing;

• An entire media establishment so intense in its hatred of the President that all journalistic standards are thrown out the window in their attempts to smear him, and any mention of Rathergate is now met with "well, what about those WMD documents?" (For one thing, those documents were only one of many reasons the international community was convinced Saddam had WMDs, instead of being central to the case. For another, it took real experts to suss out their being forgeries, instead of something that's obvious to anyone who did any typing in the 70s, and/or had anything to do with the desktop publishing revolution of the 80s.) Here, the "payola" is psychic, and has to do with earning the approval of one's social circle. But it's real nonetheless.

Posted by: Attila at 01:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.