by Ellis Rubinstein
In response to these disturbing symptoms, the Board of Directors of the American Society of Magazine Editors went public with a statement decrying any prior notice of editorial content and calling on publishers and editors to withstand advertiser pressure and uphold the principle of editorial independence. Moreover, the ASME Board spun off a subcommittee that, shortly before SW went to press, met with the powerful Magazine Publishers Association and, as I personally witnessed, elicited unprecedented sentiments of support of editorial independence.
But what then? Would this unusual step by the MPA have any real effect? Or would it be business as (worse than) usual as soon as the hubbub died down?
Encouraging news. On September 23rd, after repeated press inquiries, the MPA actually stood beside the ASME:
“As editors and publishers, we strongly believe that editorial integrity and credibility are the magazine industry’s most important assets. As a result, we believe that magazines should not submit table[s] of contents, text, or photos from upcoming issues to advertisers for prior review. We are confident that editors and publishers can inform advertisers about a publication’s editorial environment or direction without engaging in practices that may at the very least create the appearance of censorship and ultimately could undermine editorial independence.”
In the days following the issuance of this statement, scores of articles appeared in newspapers and trade magazines, and ASME and MPA officers were interviewed on radio and television. For ASME Board members, this avalanche of publicity, in itself, seemed likely to stiffen a few spines in the offices of publishers and editors-in-chief across the country.
But would it have any effect on major corporate advertisers, who can make or break startup periodicals and who can commit to—or withdraw—million-dollar ad campaigns in prominent magazines? Indeed, in the September 29th issue of Advertising Age, reporter Carol Krol quoted Chrysler Vice President-Communications Arthur C. “Bud” Liebler as saying: “We’re always going to have content guidelines.” He added, “We are not trying to get in the way of editorial integrity of any magazine, but we do have the right to determine the editorial environment where our ads appear.”
Three weeks later, however, the Detroit News broke a story that the auto giant had undergone a conversion. As reported the next day in The Wall Street Journal, corporate spokesman Michael Aberlich said: “We no longer want any kind of pre-notification.” In fact, WSJ reporter G. Bruce Knecht quoted Aberlich further: “‘...the company doesn’t want magazines to provide any kind of written or verbal warnings about controversial articles, even ones that are critical of Chrysler or its products. Any attempts by publishers to provide warnings will be spurned, he added. ‘We don’t want notifications. We won’t read them,’ he said.”
Is the war for editorial independence over? No. Self-censorship by editors worried about their bonuses or raises or employment remains a serious problem throughout the magazine industry. But at least this one new threat has been countered in a public way that won’t quickly be forgotten in the magazine industry for one very important reason: It proves that every once in a while an attack on editorial integrity can actually bring both advertisers and publishers bad publicity. And the threat of bad publicity is probably the only weapon editors have in battles for the high ground. It’s good to have an example to cite.
Ellis Rubenstein is editor of Science Magazine.