Maintaining editorial integrity

Maintaining editorial integrity

Editorial integrity can be simply defined: It means putting your readers' best interests ahead of every other consideration of what will go in your publication. And that includes considerations about ad sales, direct mail response rates, convention attendance, your executive director's whim of the week, your publisher's pet project, and--not the least by any means--above the entertainment of your editorial staff. And that includes the editor.

Threats to editorial integrity originate in four basic areas:

1. From the association hierarchy outside the publication's department.

2. From the advertising area, whether in-house or outside--and sometimes including the publisher.

3. From the leaders and practitioners in the field or industry your publications serves.

4. From the editorial department itself.

The gravest and most insidious peril to your editorial integrity is that last one, the editorial department itself. But before I explain further, let's take a quick look at the first three.

Responding to outside pressure

What do you do when someone in the hierarchy of the association your publication serves requests (or demands) certain coverage? If you feel that giving that coverage would not be in the best interests of your readers, identify the primary objectives of the person making the demand. Once you understand what he or she is really after, try to find an acceptable way to serve that person's legitimate objectives. There nearly always is a way and, as the editor of an association magazine, it is usually up to you to find it.

For example, I was once asked by the executive director of the National School Boards Association (NSBA) to devote an entire issue of The American School Board Journal to education statistics. As I was professing interest, I was also experiencing some serious inner doubt. First, it's not a good idea to devote an entire issue to one subject (if a reader doesn't like one article in an issue, he can go to any of a dozen or more); and second, there's no better cure for insomnia than education statistics.

But after talking to the director, I realized that he had some very good reasons for asking for that coverage. Further discussion resulted in the idea for a 32-page editorial and advertising supplement called Education Vital Signs. Subscribers received it over and above the regular editorial content--and so in a very real sense our readers got more than they paid for. And because the insert was bound into both our magazines, advertisers who bought space in the supplement got more circulation from us than they could from our competitors. We distributed a number of separate copies of the supplement to member organizations at no cost to them, but with some significant political benefits for our national association. And we sell single issues of the supplement. In fact, the first issue earned $10,000 in new revenue over and above ad sales. And finally, we use the supplement as a premium to increase subscription sales.

Not bad, considering that I thought the original idea threatened to undermine our editorial integrity.

Occasionally, of course, you will have to help someone realize that what he or she is asking you to do truly would not serve that person's bottomline objective. Then it's a question of being tactful.

Sales pressure

The second area from which to expect possible threats to editorial integrity is ad sales. In general, advertisers want their messages in a medium that attracts the attention and respect of their potential customers. An ad that is showcased in an award-winning, high-quality editorial environment acquires credibility and impact from its surroundings. Consistently placing your readers' best interests first in your editorial content enhances the effectiveness of the advertising that appears along with it. It induces readers (the advertisers' potential customers) to read and trust everything that appears between the covers of your magazine--including the ads.

But putting advertisers' interests first diminishes the magazine's value to its readers and, therefore, lessens the impact of the advertising it presents.

Given these realities, what do you do if a salesman on your advertising staff asks you to run a press release hyping an advertiser's product? I'd ask the salesman what the reaction would be to such editorial from that advertiser's competitors. Chances are, the competitors would want similar editorial treatment. If they didn't get it, they'd be justified in complaining about favoritism and probably would refuse to advertise. If they did get it, that would reduce their need to advertise.

Reducing the need to advertise would soon reduce the volume of advertising. Consequently, the salesman's advertising commissions would drop. So, in the best interests of that salesman's commissions, the magazine's integrity, and the advertiser's needs, I'd decline to run that advertiser's press release.

But don't misunderstand. Articles and article ideas from advertisers should never be barred arbitrarily. Rather, they should be judged by the same high standard you apply to manuscripts and story proposals from all other sources. If an advertiser's article would serve our readers' best interests, I'd be as eager to publish it as I would any other solid article. Chances are, however, that we wouldn't permit the use of any brand names in the text. When brand name information legitimately serves our readers' interests, we'll occasionally cite the name in a footnote.

Serving the field you cover

A third source of danger to editorial integrity is the field or industry your magazine covers. Threats from association and advertising sources are generally straightforward compared to the more subtle dangers of becoming merely a mouthpiece for your field. We must constantly be aware of the profound but elusive distinction between serving our readers' best interests and merely their vested interests. It's important to know the difference between being an advocate and being an apologist.

Often--perhaps usually-a natural and wholesome alignment exists between your field's best interests and its vested interests. This is so true, in fact, that a major function of our publications ought to be to promote the concept of enlightened self-interest to our readers. At the risk of sounding evangelical, I submit that the chief reason our magazines and newsletters have any value at all in this society is that we can show our readers that they can do well by doing good.

It's not risk free

When you tackle the shortcomings of your field, the last thing you want to do is preach. Coming across as holder-than-thou is unattractive, ineffective and probably inaccurate. But I think we have an obligation to our readers to tell it as it is.

In the short run you may get some unpleasant letters to the editor--or maybe to the executive director: "This field has enough critics without our own publication turning on us." Well, if you get your facts straight and present them in a collegial fashion, to serve the highest interests of your field, you'll probably survive--and maybe even prosper.

But journalism is not a risk-free trade. And when you're covering your field, that's the trade you ought to be in--journalism, not public relations.

Now, I've said editorial integrity is making sure your readers' best interests come before any other consideration--including association politics, advertising needs, and the desire of some leaders in the field for a publication devoted exclusively to happy talk. I've suggested that to pull this off, you've got to be something of a politician, showing various potential advertisers that their interests actually are the same as yours. I've noted that the fundamental honesty of this posture makes your job considerably easier.

Now, I'm going to conclude by bringing up something new. I'm going to talk about the fourth and most insidious threat to editorial integrity: That's you.

And that's me. That's editors themselves. That's most especially those of us who, in the last analysis, are responsible for what appears in the editorial pages of the association press.

We can talk among ourselves about the formidable odds we face in our struggle to produce excellence. And we do encounter obstacles; make no mistake. But I'm here to tell you that we are the greatest peril confronting the editorial integrity of our publications. How so?

When we knuckle under to our own perceptions of what our bosses want--without so much as a single peep. When we engage in self-censorship before the fact to avoid the very possibility of a painful confrontation. When we crumble before the anticipated demands of our advertising departments without even feeble protests. When we fail to engage the full power of our editorial staffs, and when we accept less than the best we know we can produce--because we're tired or lazy or complacent or disappointed that we're working on just a little association publication and not for some epitome of the real, honest-to-goodness press like Time or Newsweek or CBS.

Then we become our own worst enemies. Then we begin to fail. Then we wallow in what could be called the poison of the trade press mentality--the association press mentality.

Recognize the symptoms: It isn't news until Newsweek says it's news. We can't expect to beat The New York Times. I can't stand up at that news conference and shout my question right along with Sam Donaldson. I can't grill a source like Mike Wallace does or write a lead like Elizabeth Drew.

Well, I don't know if you can or not. But you darn well ought to try. And you shouldn't be satisfied until you can.

I've seen it happen. I've seen association publications go head to head with the richest publications in the business. And I've seen us win. I've seen association publications come out on top because we've got the inside track--because what we've lacked in dollars and staff size, we've made up for in savvy and perseverance, in sources, in intimate knowledge of our fields.

And oh, that's sweet.

COPYRIGHT 1987 Copyright by Media Central Inc., A PRIMEDIA Company. All rights reserved.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group