Advertorial allegiances
I've heard comments from readers that are convinced that the Tribune won't do certain stories because it could make one of our advertisers look bad. Each time I hear that comment, I respond the same way: "Look, when I was hired I wasn't sat down and given a list of our top advertisers. I don't know who gives what to Tribune, and I don't care. All I know is that my job is to report the news."
I don't think they buy into my little speech.
This issue came up today. I was sitting in a meeting at the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, and board member Al Contreras, who is the director of the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, asked just how much the authority pays to the Tribune and its affiliated papers in advertisements. That number is $77,000 a year.
"That's a lot less than other water agencies pay," said the authority's director, Greg Nordbak.
He's right. Directors Contreras and Bill Robinson, who also sits on the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, have both previously said that their district buys about $150,000 a year in ads.
I still don't care who gives what to the Tribune, and still know that my content is not influenced by our advertisers. But after their brief discussion about what public agencies take out ads in the Tribune, I got to thinking: That is one story I won't do.
Comments
It doesn't matter if you know how much people and bodies spend in advertising as long as your bosses know. They can encourage or discourage stories (Yes, write about legal expenses. No, don't bother with a term limits story) and they can decide when and where the story appears (Front page, above the fold? Inside page, below the fold? Sunday paper? Friday paper? Monday paper?).
Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 3:47 PM
Just a side note but doesn't another Upper San Gabriel Valley Boardmember contribute articles to your newspaper and is also a former employee of the Tribune?
Posted by: Anonymous2 | April 16, 2008 1:22 AM
Well I find it interesting that Contreras and Robinson would bring up the issue....it couldn't be that they were attempting to somehow stifle your coverage? Probably not, they were just curious....
Your personal ethics make little difference if the editors are calling the shots based on revenue vs. content.
So the million dollar question is....do you believe your editors are curtailing stories based on
a potential loss/gain of revenue dollars?
Posted by: gilman | April 16, 2008 9:10 AM
Readers WHO are convinced... Sorry. I just had a flashback when Tyra called a person a "that" and it annoyed me, like so many other things she does.
Posted by: Grammar Nazi | April 16, 2008 9:36 AM