A Philly Inquirer business column and a bank have a new arrangement. The Poynter ethics faculty weighs in.
By Leann Frola
Contributors: Kelly McBride, Bob Steele
As newspapers lose advertisers to the Internet, they’re taking
bigger risks to make more money.
Here’s the latest one, from The Philadelphia Inquirer: a new
column produced by the paper’s writers and editors that will run in a
green-colored box with a Citizens Bank label. Green, like Citizens Bank’s
green.
The paper, which reported this on Saturday, along with its plan
to use front-page advertising, said the column will contain short news items
about local, publicly traded companies.
Inquirer editor Bill Marimow told Inquirer staff writer Stacey Burling the bank will have no
control over the content of the new column and will be “100 percent based on
our news judgment and prerogatives.”
I turned to Poynter’s ethics faculty members Kelly McBride and
Bob Steele to get their take on this and what the implications might be.
[Disclosure: Bill
Marimow is a member of Poynter’s National Advisory Board. Two of
Poynter’s faculty and staff members are former Inquirer employees.]
First of all, it
looks as though we’re talking about two different things the Inquirer is
doing — front-page advertising and sponsorship of a specific column. What’s the
difference?
Kelly: The column
is a different beast because it’s connected to specific content. The bank is
directly sponsoring the column. Just the word “sponsor” implies some sort of
influence and shared values.
Marimow is saying the bank won’t control the content. Let’s
see what that looks like when the sponsor gets criticized or there’s two
equally good sources, one from the sponsor, and the writer has to choose. From
my experience, the pressure to tilt toward the sponsor is enormous.
Is sponsoring a
column inherently bad?
Kelly: I think
it’s inherently dangerous. But I think this is a time when you take risks.
If this is going to work, the Inquirer has to demonstrate
over time that its independence is not compromised. So in addition to Marimow
saying they’re 100 percent in control, it should be written down somewhere. An
online version could have a link for questions about the relationship between
the sponsor and the author — and also so that the people writing the column can
constantly be reminded what the boundaries are. In the print edition, you could
have a tag line: “Editorial decisions are made by Inquirer writers and editors.
If you have questions, please contact … “
I see a lot of talk, but what I don’t see is a process
preserving that independence. Because
they’re creating a visual symbol that undermines that independence, they have
to create visual symbols to counteract that.
What they’re doing is creating a barrier to independence.
You’ll automatically connect in your audience’s mind that there’s a
relationship. You can’t just say it once. You have to figure out a method for
saying it over and over again.
Bob: It’s a very
significant risk. Given the subject matter, these companies have a lot at stake
financially. And the Inky has a lot of credibility on the line with a new
ownership, new publisher and a new top editor.
From what we know anecdotally, many good news organizations
with good journalists at the helm compromise their ethics and succumb to
pressures from advertisers. Mostly that’s with subtle elements — who gets
interviewed and who doesn’t, or a journalist is less rigorous in his or her
reporting.
Bill Marimow can say, “We have 100 percent control of the
column’s content,” but there’s the perception that a sponsor can have influence
on the column’s focus or content.
Kelly: There’s
more than a perception. Look at the auto sections of newspapers. Because of the
nature of having car dealers become one of the biggest advertisers in American
newspapers, there’s rarely critical news in the auto sections, because the
dealers will object.
Bob: Here’s
another challenge the Inquirer will face with this column sponsored by one
bank: Will other banks and other local companies feel they’re slighted if they
don’t get covered in the column or if they don’t like the coverage?
Kelly: It’s
handing your critics a stick to beat you with. They’ll always see it as that’s a
column where they’ll give an advantage to the sponsor.
What do you do when
you’re in a position like the Inquirer, where you need additional revenue, but
don’t want to compromise the integrity or ethics of the paper?
Kelly: We’re
going to have to be hyper-vigilant about preserving our values. If you’re going
to do something out of the ordinary with advertisers, you need to do something
out of the ordinary with checks and balances. And that can be the test — am I
willing to spend the energy and resources it will take [to
ensure independence]? If you’re not willing, that’s a pretty good
indicator not to take that risk.
Bob: Here’s one
step the Inquirer might take to bring oversight to this sponsored column
approach. They could regularly do an “audit” of the column to see if it
measures up in its quality and independence. The audit would include a content
analysis of the columns to see if they are rigorous in their accuracy, fairness
and other qualities. How often, and in what way, is Citizens Bank covered? How
often are other banks covered and in what way? The audit would include
confidential interviews with reporters and editors to determine if the
journalism measures up, especially in its independence. The audit could include
interviews with business leaders, especially at other banks in the area, to
determine their perceptions on the column’s focus and content.
