Editorial Ethics versus "consulting"

A Call for Openness from CAD editors

My husband - general layabout, hockey ref and sponger par-excellance - who also reads about 20 political/business magazines a month, alongside 3 newspapers a day, often comments that journalists in these rags should have either a (D) or an (R) behind their name just like Senators do. "That way," he says "We would know in advance what angle they are coming from."

Do CAD editors need to have some similar kind of distinction? I have been forming this question since Roopinder Tara started raising the issue of editor ethics in his new CAD Insider Blog. http://cadinsider.typepad.com/my_weblog/. I think he raises a large number of very valid points.

Then last week, Time magazine featured an FBI bust on a junior editor at a well known New York Post Gossip Column in its April 17th article "Want Good press? Here's The Tab". The story goes: Billionaire supermarket owner, Ron Burkle, met with 'Page Six' contributor, Jared Stern. Oh, and the FBI taped the meeting. According to the article, Burkle was upset at uncomplimentary items about him in the column and that Stern was offering him "kid glove coverage" for a mere $220,000. Stern denies it and says that much of the money was for investment in his clothing company and then $10k a month for 'consulting on a media strategy.'

So how does that matter to us CAD types? Well, often editors in the CAD industry who have made a name for themselves, get approached by vendors for consulting gigs - anything from ghost-written white papers to hands-on software testing. And these are real, honest gigs that have value for everyone. But the question remains, how can an editor, who is perhaps being paid bucks on the side, write a review of a product by that same vendor that is negative? I believe that in such cases conflicts of interest have to prevail and can result in skewed reports that mislead readers.

More importantly, in these cases, the editor should publicly admit that they are receiving support from that vendor and make it clear.

One way to do it would be to have a letter behind their name - A for Autodesk, S for SolidWorks?) to indicate potential affiliation?

Oh and by the way, Ron Burkle should spend some of his billions on a decent PR rep rather than get dropped into embarrassing 'shakedown' meetings such as this. Just my 2 cents.

Okay, i go too far with the CAD editors, but it is a good thought.
Can we expect a little more upfront honesty?

Comments

[Roopinder Tara]

Writers and editors who take on expensive "consulting" gigs should make those arrangements public. Just having to do that should make them think twice before entering a relationship that is likely to taint their credibility.

I suspect there is quite a bit of this going on. The last couple of years, I've even seen once aloof journalist follow CAD execs around like lapdogs, openly discussing "projects."

[rachael Dalton-Taggart]

I agree with you. But is this something that would be done without coercion? probably not

[Anthony Frausto-Robledo]

I've been reading much of these "ethics" posts since Roopinder started them and have held off responding while I cogitate the implications of what has been stated and what I may end up stating.

The "D" for dem and "R" for rep. like designation is an interesting analogy but should editors "stand" for certain companies? Certain platforms? Now that is an interesting question coming from me....

I think the solution, Rachel, is already in front of us. At Architosh.com we have had more or less full disclosure of who our corporate sponsors (some might call them advertisers?) are -- and it appears on every page in the upper left hand margin. Readers are fully aware, then, that if they are reading a review article and we rate it, they should take that rating with a proper understanding of its bigger context.

We started this policy way back when because the CAD/3D industry is just too darn tiny for any publication to "strike" a virtuous clean line of editorial neutrality. There are simply not enough players (especially sizable ones with big marketing budgets) to handle companies with the integrity and honesty of an Edward R. Murrow.

This is true for Architosh as much as it is true for any other CAD pub. And in fact, some of the larger ones (no names please) may be the worst offenders when it comes to striving for editorial integrity.

But like non-CAD online publications, Architosh also started utilizing a "CS" superscript mark for companies in our news coverage which are active "corporate underwriters" at the time we went to press. Our readers easily recognize this mark (see
http://www.architosh.com/news/2006-03/2006a0324_turbo12.html ) and they can click on it for more info.

All editors really need to do is disclose who their paid advertisers or underwriters are, not mark themselves with symbols of affinity for this or that company.

[Jerry Laiserin]

Some good points, Rachael, but I think you're overreaching when you equate conflict of interest to extortion.

As a consultant who writes (vs a writer who consults) here's how I have addressed -- since Day One -- the likelihood of conflicts in The LaiserinLetter(tm)

http://www.laiserin.com/terms.php
"General
These terms of use govern the use of the Laiserin.com website, including your subscription to the LaiserinLetterTM (known collectively as the "Services")...

Editorial Policy
This is not journalism. With respect to Jerry Laiserin (publisher and editor), he is actively involved in the industries discussed... He has assisted dozens of end-user firms ... In addition, he has helped vendors seeking to understand how end-users make their buying decisions. To this group, he has offered services such as market development consulting, position analyses, competitive assessments, white papers, sponsored research, sponsored seminars, and the like. We, therefore, do not represent that the Services are journalistically unbiased. Readers ought reasonably to assume that at any given moment Jerry (or other contributors) may be engaged in some business relationship with any company we might write about, or whose competitors we might mention (or fail to mention) - if not at that moment, then in the past, or with a prospect of doing business in the future."

Furthermore, Rachael, by using the title "Editor-Publisher" I try to make it clear (as do the folks at many small ezines) that the same person (moi) who writes the words also sells the ads -- from which readers are free to draw their own conclusions.

OTOH, the realities of the AEC/CAD "commercial journalism" world are far uglier than you, Roopinder or other commentators have yet revealed.

BTW, Rachael, do you believe that bloggers are or should be exempt from journalistic standards?

[rachael Dalton-Taggart]

Jerry: thanks for the comments. Please note I did not equate conflicts of interest to extortion, and I hope that anybody I know would never stoop to that level. Instead, the story brought me back to the thought I have often had: editors of any shape, size and type cannot be seriously expected to write totally 'honest' reviews if/when they are receiving other work, funding etc from that vendor. Even the influence of sales people at a publication can sometimes sway the fatigued -although ethical - editor.

In response to both Anthony and jerry's comments, I am pleased that you both evidently make efforts to reveal any potential conflicts of interest, but am of a mind that all should do this...is that too much to ask? Should the reader have to simply assume that all editors are being influenced adversely by vendors, advertisers and the like? Maybe they should.

thanks all. keep the comments coming.

rach