Pubdate: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 Source: The Goldsboro News-Argus (NC) Copyright: 2000 Goldsboro News-Argus Address: 310 N. Berkeley Blvd., P.O. Box 10629, Goldsboro, N.C. 27532 Contact: http://www.newsargus.com/ Author: Mike Rouse MAGAZINES TOOK MONEY FOR PRINTING DRUG STORIES Television networks were condemned in this space sometime ago for submitting the scripts of entertainment programs to the federal government for approval. The shows were reviewed by the Office of National Drug Control Policy before they were aired, and the drug control office could suggest changes. That Hitleresque practice had been kept secret from the viewers. Now we learn of a similar but far more egregious alliance between media and the Clinton administration. It is more shameful because it involves some media which present themselves as news media, not just entertainment. The online magazine Salon has revealed that at least six print magazines submitted articles to the drug-control office to get advertising credits. Because the articles had anti-drug messages, the magazines asked that the government consider them as substitutes for advertising space that they owed the government under contracts. They were presenting the articles as news, but they were hoping to get taxpayer money for printing them. That is a clear violation of journalistic ethics. It is something that neither the News-Argus nor most ordinary newspapers would do. And this is what hurts: The News-Argus was, unknowingly, implicated in the scheme, because one of the magazines was USA Weekend , a supplement that the News-Argus distributes with its Sunday editions. While none of the government revenue went to the newspapers that distribute USA Weekend, most of them undoubtedly feel tainted, as does the News-Argus. This newspaper is seeking assurances from USA Weekend that such practices will not be repeated. Otherwise it will consider replacing USA Weekend with another Sunday supplement. The other guilty parties were U.S. News & World Report, Parade, Sporting News, Family Circle and Seventeen . Spokesmen for the magazines say their writers and editors knew nothing about the arrangement with the drug office when they produced the stories. They saw no ethics violation because the stories would have been published on their own merit regardless of the arrangement. That is small consolation. Now that their editorial staffs are aware of the situation, will they consider the arrangement next time they approach a story dealing with drug use? More important, what will it do to the magazines credibility with readers? How will they know that any stories, not just drug stories, are done without regard to under-the-table revenue? As Tom Goldstein, dean of the Columbia University School of Journalism, told Salon , "There should not be arrangements that are hidden from readers." This arrangement also raises questions of a different nature. If the government has contracted with a magazine for a certain amount of advertising space, why should it not insist on getting that space without regard to what the magazine has done editorially? The arrangement stinks from both ends. Magazines, especially those that present themselves as "news" magazines, should not take money from anyone for editorial content. And if the government wants to buy ad space for messages that it wants to send, it should insist on getting ad space. - --- MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk