Here's a scary juxtaposition of articles about the upheaval in the publishing industry--or maybe it's a useful warning sign.
In today's New York Times, just beneath the coverage of National Geographic's decision to end regular publication of Adventure magazine (the latest victim of the pandemic of dwindling advertising) is a story about a bizarre management change at the Dallas Morning News. The News has decided that some of its editors should report to advertising sales executives.
Media ethicist professor Loren Ghiglione (my first boss in journalism) told the Times that while the need to sell ads has always helped shape news coverage to some extent, "this does seem to me to take it to a slightly different level."
Slightly?
Assuming that the ad folks aren't actually dictating editorial coverage (we can hope, can't we?), there is still the critical issue of perception, as Ghiglione points out. No matter what the details of this new structure really are, it just looks like a sell-out. Editors are being managed by the people who sell advertising. How could that not undercut the perceived independence, credibility, and value of the newspaper's articles among its readers?
As newspapers and magazines go through the agonizing process of reinvention, we are all scrambling to survive. But let's not shoot ourselves in the foot, people. Anyway you look at it, this is a bad idea.
Agree, disagree? Please chime in.
