Buildings like this don’t come cheap. (cc photo: Wally Gobetz)
There are some changes in store at Time magazine. According to a New York Times report (12/30/13), one of the biggest is happening behind the scenes, as parent company Time Warner makes Time Inc. an independent entity.
As the Times reports, this is happening at a particularly bad time–for Time in particular and for the magazine business in general. The Times reports that Time seems to think it has a plan:
To combat these negative forces, Time Inc. will abandon the traditional separation between its newsroom and business sides, a move that has caused angst among its journalists. Now, the newsroom staffs at Time Inc.’s magazines will report to the business executives. Such a structure, once verboten at journalistic institutions, is seen as necessary to create revenue opportunities and stem the tide of declining subscription and advertising sales.
Making journalists answer to the advertising side of the business is a pretty significant departure. But it’s important to understand that certain decisions are made all the time that mostly protect the interests of either a media outlet’s parent company or a particular advertiser. FAIR’s been collecting these stories every year in our annual Fear & Favor report; in fact, one of the first examples (Extra!, 5/01) concerned Time magazine’s “Heroes for the Planet” series, which had an exclusive sponsor: Ford Motor Company. As FAIR’s report noted:
Asked about the conflict of interest presumed by having an automobile company sponsor an environmental series, Time‘s international editor admitted to the Wall Street Journal (9/21/98) that, no, the series wasn’t likely to profile environmentalists battling the polluting auto industry. After all, Alexander explained, “we don’t run airline ads next to stories about airline crashes.”
And in one rather famous example, Time ran a cover story about tornadoes the same week the parent company was releasing a movie called Twister, about…. Well, you get the idea. And there are regular features that might give readers pause; the magazine has cover of energy issues that is sponsored by oil giant Shell.
Nonetheless, the company’s CEO, Joseph Ripp, says they will “never, ever, ever, violate our trust with consumers.” And to that end, apparently, the Times reports that Time is bringing back a familiar name:
To mediate any disputes and help the newsroom side maintain its independence, Mr. Ripp recently rehired Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc.’s former editor in chief, to become the company’s chief content officer, essentially acting as a corporate referee.
I’m not sure what a “corporate referee” is, but Pearlstine was editing Time when some of the preceding infractions took place. And more recently, Pearlstine had a very similar-sounding job at Bloomberg. According to his Bloomberg Businessweek bio, he was “Chief Content Officer,” which involved:
In this role Pearlstine is charged with seeking growth opportunities for Bloomberg‘s television, radio, magazine and online products and to make the most of the company’s existing news operations.
If his new job is set up anything like that job, then it sounds more like Pearlstine’s role won’t be to prevent journalistic conflicts of interest–but to create more of them.
This is the worst news I’ve heard so far this year.
Censorship through the sales department and management is as old as the hills.
Back in the late 1970’s I worked as a news anchor for a local TV station affiliated with a major network. In addition I produced and hosted a 30 minute current events program where I interviewed one or more prominent and/or newsworthy “news makers.”
I mentioned an upcoming guest on the international journalism scene who was coming to town and would be available. I happened to mention to the station manager why that guest was so prominent. Needless to say that individual’s appearance was nixed by the manager who did not want any “controversial” individuals on the air. His words during our discussion, “The First Amendment be damned!”
I left the station soon thereafter. I left believing it was a matter of the manager’s personal fears and biases. Over the years I came to understand this was an industry-wide phenomenon.
I’m not sure what a “corporate referee” is, but Pearlstine was editing Time when some of the preceding infractions took place. And more recently, Pearlstine had a very similar-sounding job at Bloomberg. According to his Bloomberg Businessweek bio, he was “Chief Content Officer,” which involved:
Corporate Referee (aka Emergency Manager, aka Axeman for the corporation. What he says will go, because it will always be a 2 vote on his side, and the ‘journalists’ have one period, no matter how many actual bodies there are.
The is not ‘conflict’ of interest, in their eyes. This union is a perfect match made for them, and causes no conflicts with their “inner peace”….
Good stuff, Mr. Hart. I appreciate this clear example of how corporate journalism is not journalism. Since I just came across this other piece, also concerning Time magazine, I’ll post the link to a comparison of U.S. & world covers for TIME Magazine:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/25/1039957/-STUNNING-Comparing-U-S-World-Covers-for-TIME-Magazine?detail=email
–I recall Jon Stewart’s interview with Stephen Brill, who wrote a deep report about the non-rationale for hospital charges, after which Stewart turned to the camera and said, “I can’t believe I’m saying this: Go out and buy this issue of Time magazine!” –I read Brill’s excellent report online, free as a bird…
So a long time worthless rag will become even more so. Big deal.
40 years ago, TIME was already called “the weekly fiction magazine.” Now more than ever.
Lots of adds with little content.Read it growing up but really don’t anymore.On a bigger picture Im more worried about what the press does NOT report.And that is so much about the liberal works upon the world as to be unbelievable.And how about all those global warming scientists trapped in the ice.Not one publication saw the irony?