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.