You're not crazy. Really - Editorial

Folio: The Magazine for Magazine Management, July 1, 1994 by Anne M. Russell

Feel uncomfortable with something that everyone around you insists is "standard practice"? Don't ignore your instinct.

Ross Perot can afford to choose "Crazy" as his theme song, but most of the rest of us would prefer to be more solidly grounded. We seek the regular reassurance of reality checks in lieu of flying off into the wild blue yonder of the mind.

Group reality checks take place at editorial retreats, sales conferences and industry association meetings - or, as I observed recently, in Folio: seminars. The topic was "Editorial Ethics: The Good, The Bad and The Compromises," and the same session was held at both the West Coast (in April) and East Coast (May) Folio: Shows. About a dozen people participated at each site.

On the whole, the Western contingent proved more sanguine about their own sanity, seeming fairly confident that, no, they were not demented, but the overreaching publicists and ambitious Hollywood stars they dealt with often were. That attitude was attributable not only to California publishing's generally calmer and - dare I say - saner magazine scene, compared to New York City's, but also to the panelists themselves. They were veteran consumer magazine editors: Allan Mayer from Buzz and Cable Neuhaus from Entertaiment Weekly, with editorial consultant John Brady as moderator.

If there was a theme that came out of the discussion that followed, it was that Golden State editors know the difference between right and wrong, but sometimes expediency rears its ugly head. One audience member, for example, recalled throwing a sentence about male incontinence into a story about female incontinence to placate the ad department - but only under protest, and knowing that it wasn't of much service to the readers.

In New York, however, it was a grimmer story. For one thing, the audience members were younger and therefore less confident about their perceptions of what's acceptable and what isn't. Also, the panel - which consisted of Alan Fredericks from Travel Weekly, Marilyn Nason from the Western North Carolina Business Journal, and Tony Silber of this magazine, with Alan Zeichick from Cadence and OS/2 as moderator - was made up of trade editors, who, I believe, have to fight more vigorously and more often than their consumer counterparts to defend the editorial walls against attack.

Here, one representative question began, "When I fax a manuscript to a story subject ..." while another, from a staff editor, started, "When I write advertorials ... "

Obviously, there is a problem and - at the root - it is that there is no consistent code of ethical practice, particularly not on the trade side. It's a point I have made before. (See "It's easy to be sleazy," Folio: February 15, 1994, page 7.) Neither the American Society of Magazine Editors guidelines nor the American Business Press membership pledge goes far enough in providing a sane set of standards - especially for people new to the magazine business who, indeed, may begin to doubt the sanity of their own perceptions.

Or is it impossible to protect those bent on sleazy, compromising conduct from themselves? Is it simply more practical to turn a blind eye to it? The Canadian Magazine Publishers Association doesn't think so. Says CMPA executive director Catherine Keachie, "We turn down at least 20 percent of the people who apply for membership here - of a total of about 50 or 60 per year." Why? To be a member, you have to be a real magazine, not a magalog, and that, ultimately, means a publication that serves the reader.

Not a bad example to consider.