MAGAZINES' CREDIBILITY FOR SALE

Journalism's stock in trade is credibility. If readers don't trust a
publication to do objective reporting, it won't be viable for long.
That's why it was so puzzlingly shortsighted for at least six major
magazines to squander their credibility in exchange for a little extra
profit.

Disclosures by Salon magazine indicate that magazines including U.S.
News and World Report and Parade (which is offered in the St.
Petersburg Times on Sundays), submitted articles with anti-drug
messages to the government's Office of National Drug Control Policy to
qualify for financial benefits. Magazines with approved editorial
content were able to reduce the number of advertising pages they
provided the government. The arrangement is similar to the one
recently uncovered by Salon involving television networks, in which
anti-drug television scripts were sent to the government to qualify as
an exchange for expensive public service announcements.

These unseemly collaborations came about after Congress in 1997
authorized the spending of nearly $1-billion for anti-drug
advertising. The law stipulated that all advertising bought by ONDCP
had to be offered at a 50 percent discount.

For every ad ONDCP bought at full price, it would have to be offered a
second ad for free. There was a loophole, though, that gave media
outlets a way to satisfy the government discount without actually
giving away space.

Approved editorial content could be substituted for bonus
ads.

Most of the editors and publishers who have spoken about the
arrangement claim the editorial content at their magazines wasn't
compromised, because only the business side knew about the deal with
the ONDCP. But it doesn't matter that the wall separating advertising
and editorial wasn't breached.

Any publication that agrees to be rewarded by the government for
espousing the "right" message gives readers cause to question its
motivation for reporting a story.

Readers may legitimately wonder whether they're receiving an accurate
survey of America's drug problem or a piece of government propaganda.

The government, too, has a lot to answer for. Certainly the ONDCP may
purchase ad space like any other client.

But when the government pays to promote messages in a publication's
stories, commentaries and features, it's influencing the culture under
the radar screen.

While no one argues with the value of anti-drug messages, the program
that allows ONDCP to use the government's deep pockets to reward media
content sets a terrible precedent. Next time, the benefits might flow
to media that agree to provide stories taking government-approved
positions on more controversial issues.

Due to the insidious nature of the program and its potential for
manipulating an unwary public, it should be shut down. When the
government spends the public's money to influence public opinion, it
should do so only when we can see its hand.