Decisions by BP and Morgan Stanley requiring prior restraint on any publication where they advertise represent great news for the blogosphere. (The BP logo here comes from the University of Nebraska Cycling team -- Go Huskers.)
For the sake of blogs I hope they're copied by many other companies.
These decisions strike at the heart of traditional journalism business models, and give publishers a Hobson's Choice. They can either:
- Run BP, Morgan Stanley or (insert name here -- the blogosphere is working on a list) ad and fork over their reputation with readers, or
- Refuse ads under those conditions and, perhaps, go out of business.
Readers now know, whenever they see an ad from Morgan Stanley or BP in any print publication, that editorial coverage has been muzzled. (The Morgan Stanley logo to the left comes from their Japanese affiliate.)
Well, there are no BP or Morgan Stanley ads here, and if any Corante author finds a story on one of these two companies be certain we'll go with it. In fact I'll go further.
Every ethical journalist-blogger on the planet is now on notice to look for negative stories about these companies, and seek out the names of companies with similar policies. Once such a story hits any blog it will be everywhere, instantly, thanks to the magic of RSS.
Whoever came up with this idiocy did themselves, and their employers, no favors at all.
Maybe it's wrong that many bloggers don't call the corporate subjects of their pieces when they write, but all journalists have been in the position of getting pressure from above when they do. So, increasingly, they don't.
Apologies in advance to those honest businesspeople out there I haven't called to chat about stories. Prior restraint is a bad thing and I, as a blogger, am not subject to it.
So you, the reader, can trust me.
Can we say the same about, say, The Wall Street Journal or Business Week?
We report. You decide.
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
1. simon on May 24, 2005 08:42 PM writes...
What??? I hope you are not being serious with this line of reasoning.
Your reaction sounds childish.
A more thoughtful piece would have soughtto understand the situation that drove the actions these firms have taken.
No most consumers will not know any such thing ... quit playing the journalist role and start thinking critically.
There are two sides of the story and may possible outcomes.
Permalink to Comment2. simon on May 24, 2005 08:44 PM writes...
What??? I hope you are not being serious with this line of reasoning.
Your reaction sounds childish.
A more thoughtful piece would have sought to understand the situation that drove the actions these firms have taken.
No most consumers will not know any such thing ... quit playing the journalist role and start thinking critically.
There are two sides of the story and may possible outcomes.
Permalink to Comment3. Ron Coleman on May 25, 2005 01:17 PM writes...
"Prior restraint"? What, they have to advertise where they disagree with the editorial?
This is ridiculous! Come on, Dana, give it a break!
Permalink to Comment4. bobby on May 26, 2005 12:58 AM writes...
"What, they have to advertise where they disagree with the editorial?"
simply put, no.
Would we trust the fox to guard the chickens?
Should we believe that a corporation who has as it's goal the minimizing of costs & maximizing of profits (damn the truth) will care about truth?
If they disagree with the editorial bent of the site, they need not advertise there. But I agree with Dana. Seeing a BP or Morgan Stanley ad will tell me that I am reading propaganda.
Permalink to Comment