Editorial integrity: where do you stand? - column

Editorial integrity: Where do you stand?

One of the sadder sights in our business is the editor who sacrifices principle daily in a desperate attempt to hang on to his job. I've known more than one. You probably know someone, too. Avoiding that humiliation should be a major career objective for all of us.

Many of us start out with some firm ideas about what is right and what is wrong. In particular, we believe that our overriding obligation is to serve the reader: Within limits, what helps us serve the reader is right; what gets in the way is wrong.

In the real world of business publishing, however, we quickly find that this principle is not what guides management. Management must turn a profit. It must serve readers well enough to hold them, but not so well that it goes broke. Naturally, it must not offend very many readers. Management must also sell space. It can ill afford to antagonize advertisers or prospects.

So the real world puts real constraints on the editorial package--and real strains on that holy, guiding principle of journalism that says the reader comes first. Is there a journalist who did not experience the constraints, and the strains, within one week of starting his first job in business publishing?

By now, maybe it sounds as though I'm going to bash business publishing. Not so. On the whole, business publishing does a whale of a job for its readers. Too many of us, though, become insensitive to the compromises we make. And, partly as a result, we tend to compromise not only more than we should, but more than we must. I also believe that we ought to do more to sensitize our publishers, and their bosses, to some of the ethical dilemmas of our craft--even to the point of gaining their support for a code of very specific dos and don'ts that puts readers' needs uppermost.

This is not to suggest a suicide attack. Some of the compromises we have made in the past have become institutionalized. They are unlikely to be undone.

And I'm not going to waste our time talking about the "no brain" issues we face now and then. I am much more concerned about the more subtle ways this business can erode personal integrity. I'll spotlight shortly some of the situations that can and do lead to such erosion.

Once upon a time, I used to participate in industry roundtables on ethical issues. From such discussions, two facts emerged clearly. One was that many business journalists were ready to rationalize and defend the particular mores that prevailed within their company. The other followed: that it would be impossible to develop an industry-wide code on the more subtle issues of integrity.

The pressure for achievement

Now, looking back, I wish I had done more to educate my publishers--not just on a case-by-case basis, but on the basis of principles to be uniformly applied. I'm writing today in the hope that I can spur some of you to do what I failed to do. But beyond that, I want to suggest that we face up squarely to ethical issues that arise not because of business pressure, but because of the pressure for achievement. That pressure may come from editorial management. Or it may be pressure we put upon ourselves.

I also want to suggest that it is not enough to maintain our personal integrity in solitary splendor. We can help change things for the better only if we project our integrity. When we make a decision on the basis of integrity, it is important that others affected by that decision see that integrity is the issue.

It is hard to project integrity unless we react to ethical issues quickly, firmly, consistently and articulately. If the publisher asks for an article that is clearly way out of bounds, we don't project integrity by hemming and hawing. Of course, hemming and hawing, and then saying "no," is better than acquiescing. But a quick, firm "no" makes it much less likely that we will be faced with a similar request in the future. We have not merely hashed over a particular request; we have delivered a general message that helps to define our position on editorial integrity.

And by the way, some publishers will welcome a firm message. They probably have not thought about the nuts and bolts of editorial integrity. When you sell for a living, you live on a slippery slope, and you need all the handholds you can get.

Be prepared

But there's only one way to avoid hemming and hawing, and that is to think out our positions in advance. I don't mean to suggest that we can anticipate all the weird variety of ethical issues that will come before us. But there are things we can do that will help. . First, keep firmly in mind the magazine's audience and mission. Our job is to attract and hold certain types of readers, to provide those readers with certain types of information, and to make it as easy as possible for them to find and absorb that information. If we have thought through these objectives, it is usually easy, for example, to reject an article that does not belong. . Second, keep firmly in mind the realities of reader perception. It is not enough to have the right goals. For us to be effective, our readers must perceive that these are indeed our goals. That means that in the magazine we must try to avoid ambiguities. By ambiguities I mean layouts or messages that, innocent or not, might cast doubt on our commitment to the reader.

We all try, for example, to make sure that an advertisement for a product does not run close to an article that discusses such products. In some other areas, however, our standards for reader perception are not so high. . Third, know what compromises you can live with. Few of us go through life adhering to a set of moral absolutes. If we did, few of us could work in this business--or perhaps any business. There has evolved in business publishing a spectrum of practices that constitutes today's reality. Like it or not, some of today's accepted practices, even in the best of publishing houses, are inconsistent with that supposed overriding commitment to the reader.

A good example is the so-called advertorial. We face an uphill battle today if we try to keep an advertorial out of the book. Can we be content with the knowledge that our predecessors lost that particular battle a long time ago? Can we be content if we merely try our best to tell the reader that the advertorial is a paid message? . Fourth, know what you are prepared to do when confronted with an order to violate your own sense of personal integrity. Not every issue is worth putting your job on the line. You may sleep soundly enough if you merely register your dissent verbally. However, your boss may have a short or convenient memory. A written dissent is more likely to make a lasting impression.

Most important, of course, know when you are willing to sacrifice your job. If you can afford to do it, quitting on principle is a great way to make a statement, and it may help the next guy in that job.

Focusing on the question

Now let me be more specific. Here are a half-dozen issues bearing on editorial integrity that I believe we must think about before it's time to make decisions.

1. Article selection: What factors determine the topics we cover and the industry contributors we solicit? Do we run a roundup on an old area that happens to support a lot of advertisers or potential advertisers, or do we displace it with a piece on a new area that has much less support? Do we favor by-lines from companies that advertise with us, or do we accept a good piece from a company that has resolutely resisted the blandishments of our sales staff?

2. The editorial calendar: This was conceived to help the space peddlers, not the readers. It may be harmless if it merely forces us to do some planning and to inform the sales force. Is it okay, though, if the calendar reflects the sales priorities of the publisher and not the information needs of the readers?

3. Roundups: When we do a roundup, how do we make up the list of contacts? Is there a must-call list from the business side? Worse by far, is there a must-quote list from the business side? Or, even if there are no such lists, do we, when we report and when we write, consciously favor those who do business with us?

4. New products: Who picks the new products to be included in our columns? Most readers probably understand that routine new-product write-ups are unpaid advertisements, not objective stories. That's one of those institutional compromises. But do the readers have a right to expect objective judgment in the selection of the products to be covered?

5. Negative content: An editor of a vertical industry book once told me that he would not run a story about a company that was forced into bankruptcy or, in fact, any other story that reflected negatively on a company in his industry. That's an extreme case. On the other side, I do not advocate bashing a company for the fun of it. But how free are we to report objectively and in full on the products, the companies, and the people we cover? How free should we be?

6. Editorial calls: Do we call only on the people we need to call on to do a job for the readers? Or do we also call on the advertisers because the business side wants us to? I have no big problem with the chief editor carrying the flag, explaining the book to advertisers--though if we had better publishers, it wouldn't be necessary. But what about an editorial call policy that wastes the time of editors and sends both them and our advertisers the wrong message?

Honest writing

Up to this point, I have chosen to talk about issues of integrity that may arise from conflict between editorial and sales objectives. Those are not the only issues of integrity we have to deal with. Just to maintain balance, let me list a half-dozen issues that, especially for working reporters and writers, may cut closer to home.

1. Phantom sources: How often have you read, "Some industry sources say . . ."? The reader is entitled to believe that that statement is the result of honest reporting. Yet I have known writers who think it is okay to use such statements rhetorically--as a way to set off opposing ideas. And how often do we question such statements as "The industry consensus is . . ." or "There is wide agreement that . . ."? Far worse to contemplate: How many unattributed quotes are not real?

2. Incomplete reporting: I am not talking about obvious holes. I am talking about the reporting we didn't do, that isn't obvious, and that might have made a difference. On a technology story, for example, we knowingly fail to contact a scientist whose work may ultimately change the conventional wisdom. We ran short of time, our story will read fine, and no one important will complain. But did we fulfill our contract with the reader?

3. Oversimplification: We are constantly under pressure to make our stories both notable and readable. One way is to portray our topics in blacks and whites, to suppress some of the grays, the complexity, that make up the real world. I admire a writer who has done enough reporting to say with confidence that General Motors, say, messed up by failing to anticipate changes in market demand. But is that writer willing to weaken the thrust of his story by pointing out the vagaries of Government policy and other complex factors that might cause any management to misread the future?

4. Nonexistent trends: There are a lot of jokes in our business about what makes a trend. And I don't know if anyone ever decided how many swallows make a summer. We don't have a problem with a trend that is based on objective, quantified research. The problem is with a trend based on scattershot, anecdotal research. How much reporting does it take to support a trend? How often do we settle for a lot less because we've got a nice story?

5. Distorted graphics: A powerful graphic speaks louder than words. We love it when we can support the thrust of a story with a sharply rising of falling curve, or with a bar chart that shows bars of vastly different size. But do we sometimes steepen the slope or exaggerate the difference by tinkering with the scales or by cutting off a range of data?

6. Factual errors: We all make mistakes in the magazine. Do we own up to them? Sometimes we are reluctant to draw attention to a truly embarrassing error. And I know one editor who, more than once, arbitrarily slashed a correction box because, as he noted, "the readers will think the magazine is full of mistakes." I doubt that he is alone.

In all of these areas, the general moral imperative is clear. But we usually have to apply that bit of moral wisdom in cloudy circumstances. Yet we all have a duty to ourselves, to our colleagues, and, yes, to this business that supports us, to respond thoughtfully and sensitively to such issues.

Up to now, I have urged that we prepare ourselves to react to issues of integrity. We should do more. I believe that we, especially we who manage, or help manage, editorial operations should take initiatives to forestall issues of integrity.

We live in a society that is driven to a great degree by marketing--by the desire and the necessity to move goods and services. It is all too easy for those who spend advertising dollars to assume that editors, and the magazines they edit, are primarily tools to help them move those products. We should try to change that perception.

We know that our business purpose is to deliver readers who are meaningful to advertisers. But it is common for publishers to speak of a magazine as designed to serve both readers and advertisers. And for some, it is an easy leap from this reasonable concept to the unacceptable idea that service to advertisers is part of the editorial mission. We should try to change that perception.

Those of us who are editorial managers bent on achievement do not always realize the extent of the pressure we put on our staffs. It is understandable if some of our people conclude that exclusive and dramatic stories matter more than how they get that way. We should try to change that perception, too.

Making integrity important to our own people isn't always easy. Some may be ill prepared to deal with issues of editorial integrity. Journalism schools pay more attention to technique than to the subtleties of ethics. The emergence of the so-called new journalism has tended to obscure the boundaries of fact and fiction. The omnipresence of advertising and PR, and their too-often uncritical acceptance by the public at large, have tended to depreciate truth. Thrown into contact with the world of business, and without firm guidance, our staffers too often succumb to a cynical view of our mission.

We cannot change the world, but we can make our own positions clear. We can illuminate the more subtle issues of integrity in staff discussions. We can explain to our staff the ethical basis of the tough decisions we make.

We can also draft a written code for our own publication, one that goes beyond general industry codes such as that promulgated by the American Society of Business Press Editors. We can solicit approval of our code by our publisher. And we can make that code known to our readers and advertisers.

I believe that many publishers, and even many advertisers, would welcome such codes. A written code makes decisions easier to make and easier to explain to others.

To conclude on a more personal note: Business pressures are real, and many of you have had experience with publishers who felt, perhaps rightly, that they had to sacrifice integrity to stay in business. When that happens, you can swallow hard, stick around, adjust and ultimately be humiliated. Or you can move on. I say: Move on.

But be ready to move on. Work constantly on honing your skills and learning new ones. Make contacts in the business. Read widely; don't become too specialized. Then, if and when it's time, move on.

You may have some lean and anxious months. But you'll feel better about yourself. And so will the rest of us who believe that integrity is important and well worth the struggle.

COPYRIGHT 1989 Copyright by Media Central Inc., A PRIMEDIA Company. All rights reserved.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group