Money talks - news walks.
Is it ethical for a TV station not to run a particular news story because the story is about a mjor advertising client. This account just happens to spend a ton of money on the station. Well, believe it or not, this was the case last year at a local Kansas City TV station. I can not mention the station by name. The GM and the local sales manager told the news director that this story does not go on the air. The GM did not want to lose any station revenue, and of course more importantly, his portion of the hefty sales commission. What does this tell you about news coverage? Is it all about money?
Comments
Come on, Stuart, Three C's would blow up if you mentioned the name. Ha.
That kind of corruption just gives me one more reason to follow the blogs. I wonder if they thought the story wasn't important enough to risk losing revenue.
It probably was an important one, considering they might have alienated a major advertiser. But I guess I'll never know...
Posted by: Steve Lynn | April 27, 2006 1:45 AM
It happens. It happens -- probably -- more often the smaller the market. When the biggest business in town is the grain dealer, it's mighty hard to do a story on how the silos are explosion hazards. Car dealers' repair departments are a classic case, in all sized markets. Less than scrupulous about doing the work they charge for... more than willing to pull their ads.
Whether the station management should kill a story depends on the motive. If it's solely because of fear of losing the advertising, it's chicken-spit public service. If it's because of genuine concerns about the accuracy, fairness or defensibility of the story (as articulated by the lawyers), it's quite a bit less troublesome. Big, big gray area of overlap of the two? Oh, yeah.
Magazines are probably one of the media where the ad/editorial interplay is most ambiguous. Do we see coverage of issues like testing cosmetics on animals in the glamour mags? Not often.
Posted by: John Broholm | April 28, 2006 3:18 PM