1.09.2004

"Advertising and commercials do not masquerade as journalism" -- oh honey, I beg to differ. Nathaniel is taking umbrage at the Boston Herald for basically selling its front page to JetBlue. Setting aside the entire realm of TV Action McNews, which seems to exist solely to fill dead air, provide weather forecasts, and scare old people, I just can't get riled. I would love to be able to get behind the free American press on this one, but the fact is newspapers are withering on the vine, or should I say the modem cable. They are desperate for readership, and will pretty much do whatever their advertisers want to keep generating revenue. I'll admit it's not entirely appropriate to hoodwink the readers, but a) the Herald is a tabloid paper, b) they were giving it out for free, and c) as they must so sorely realize, it's not like you can't get your actual news somewhere else...though I challenge you to find a news outlet untainted by its advertisers. Even PBS and specialty, subscriber-supported online sites like Salon aren't immune.

I remember taking a tour of the Boston Globe several years back, and I met Mark Morrow, one of the editors. He made a very witty remark in response to my friend's question, "How do you prioritize and trim stories to fit around all the full page ads?" [We were talking about the international news coverage, or lack thereof.] He said, "Well, if it were up to our advertisers, we'd have to start each story, 'Brought to you by Dave Dinger Ford dealership in Braintree.'" I think the papers, and the readers, are well aware of the hefty ad content -- the Globe comes to my door on Sundays literally swathed in ads, as the plastic bag is emblazoned and usually stuffed with a free sample or coupon. Caveat emptor, I say. Would we rather have state-run news, a la Al-Jazeera? Given the state of our Congress' impartiality these days, that seems...unwise. Or we could pay $12 for an ad-free version of the daily paper: no thanks. Hey, think of it this way, even the Simpsons have this problem: they read "The Springfield Shopper."

No comments: