"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
Advertising pays the bills, and the newspaper's first allegiance is to
the advertiser. It's been that way pretty much from the very beginning.
Journalistic Integrity is only a priority if it doesn't conflict with
revenue generation.

In theory, perhaps, but not in practice.

In the publications I've worked for (UK IT press), and indeed still work
for, the editorial and advertising divisions have been deliberately
separate. While the editorial people are sufficiently bright to realise that
it's the advertising that pays their wages, the advertising people are also
sufficiently bright to realise that (a) advertising revenue is proportional
to size of readership; and (b) size of readership is proportional to quality
of editorial. The two sides are therefore mutually sustaining.

I have had instances where advertisers have made hints that they'll spend
more if we write more about them (or, on rare occasions, if we'll be nicer
about them than in the past). In all cases, the answer has been "no", and
the publishers have stood behind us all the way. Not that they had any
choice, actually, because writers and editors are fiercely protective of
their personal integrity and reputation.

Interestingly, though, where an advertiser has been upset that we've "not
written enough about them" it has often been solved by a few minutes on the
phone explaning how the editorial process works. I remember one case where
we invited a furious advertiser to the office to explain to him the
relationship between ads and editorial, and he went away smiling. All we'd
done was point out that his PR people used to send us, on average, ten press
releases a week - all about piddly little things, and none about their new
product line (which was actually quite nice!) - and that if they restrained
themselves and only told us, in decent sized chunks, when something happened
that actually mattered, he'd stand half a chance of being written about.

D.