The Broken Wall - newspaper coverage of its advertisers

Washington Monthly, Sept, 1999 by Blake Fleetwood

Music store chains have been more brazen in using their influence with papers. In the early '90s the Metro Times of Detroit uncovered strong-arm tactics used by these chains against retail shops selling used, cheaper CDs. But after getting boycott threats from record companies the publisher told the reporters that he couldn't afford the lost income, according to Pete Kotz, a reporter who worked there at the time. More than half the paper's revenue came from entertainment ads.

The published examples are plentiful enough and very easy to dig up. Just ask any reporter or editor. But for every printed story that draws advertiser ire, there are thousands that never see the light of day. Reporters learn the dominant values by osmosis. The publisher hears something from the owner. The editor overhears the publisher and passes on the gospel to reporters with verbal and non-verbal signs. Self-censorship steps in.

Sometimes editors actually curry favor with advertisers through fuller or more favorable coverage. Last year the Albany Times Union devoted most of its front page to fawning coverage of new Delta Airline service in town. The Chicago Sun Times, in a story reporting increased sales after the Versace murder, mentions the major department store advertisers but leaves out non-advertisers like Neiman Marcus. Executive Editor Larry Green publicly admits that the paper favors advertisers in its news stories. "We have to take care of our customers," he says.

Another example of taking care of customers is a story in the "Driving" section of the Cleveland Plain Dealer last June 27. The front page is devoted to buying "The First Car" and appropriately features a piece on crash-test results, pointing out that the Ford Taurus and the Chevrolet Lumina have a good rating from the Insurance Institute. The article does not mention that the Chevrolet Cavalier gets a "poor" rating from the same Insurance Institute. On the next page the Cavalier is prominently displayed as a Special of the Week in a half page ad.

Selling the Future

In the last few weeks I talked to dozens of editors and publishers across the country. They all grew up with the ideals and myths of the profession: that pursuit and publication of the truth was the highest value, and that if you worked hard enough, the truth could even bring down a president. This passion for truth was in the air they breathed as young men in the '60s and '70s.

But at some point in their lives, these 40- and 50-year old men and women had also learned some other truths: That their papers were owned by far-off chains, controlled by California pension funds and invested with a very specific quarterly profit agenda. That if these returns were not forthcoming, they would be replaced. There is a lot of mobility in the newspaper business. It doesn't pay to bite the hand that feeds you. They learned to steer clear of any controversy that might quickly cost their papers $100,000 or even a million dollars in lost advertising.

In many cases, these editors would insist that they're simply giving readers what they want. But that is precisely the problem. What is it that readers really want from their newspapers? The surveys are contradictory; the answers seem to depend on how you ask the questions. Readers want help with their shopping, but they also want hard-hitting investigative stories. They want their sacred cows poked and gored. They want the hidden agendas of the rich and powerful exposed. Yet editors too often pay more attention to the clamor for product-oriented coverage, and in so doing, they undermine their own credibility. "In order to combat the shoppers, we have become a shopper," said Mike Meyers. "We are giving away the franchise. It is the dumbest strategy"