Now, I'm going to play devil's advocate about the boundary that's being crossed by the "placing" of stories. And let me preface this by saying that I am an American Publisher in print media. We're human interest-focused vs. hard news,, and a small magazine compared to national newspapers like the LA Times, but still, our journalistic principles are the same. I'll also say that I'm not a journalist myself, but simply a manager (notice how I don't say leader since I don't think they can be "led" anywhere very effectively) of journalists and writers day-in/day-out.
A couple of things come to mind:
(I think this is the most interesting question.) Against whose yardstick are we measuring the integrity of journalism? Theirs or ours? And here's what I'm thinking ... let's say I'm an expat working in Vietnam. A beautiful country with wonderful people, but you're only as influential as the people you know and the palms you grease. It's general practice to stop you in the middle of the road to pay "toll" just because they feel like it and you look like you can afford it. What's the morality attached here? And whose the judge? If I'm in PR in Vietnam, I better hope that my operating budget covers the expense of the bribes that will be required to even get attention from someone and taken seriously, let alone anything out into media. That's all a crap shoot. You're at the mercy of the organization and chances are you're going to get zilch for zilch because that's the way the culture works. So where do you draw the line if the standard mode of operations is thus?? And how far should we be willing to go within their context, not ours? Or shouldn't we?
The other thing that comes to mind is the state of American journalism, very specifically newspaper and television. As an ideal, a news organization should never be influenced by its advertisers, but it does happens ALL THE TIME. Advertisers pay the bills, not readers/viewers. The influence may be subtle, but it definitely happens. If a major advertiser throws a fit over something (could be anything), you can bet that the organization is listening and somehow affected. Today, newspaper advertising is down 10-15% and is trending downward. What does that mean for the quality and integrity of American journalism that already relies on "supplied" information for a large portion of its content? As it is, stories are barely fact-checked, resources are stretched and will be stretched even further as revenues drop, competition is fierce and the turn-around for news is now instantaneous, which again, questions quality. Couple that with the entire industry shaking up (see the swaps in Chicago papers and Knight Ridder's properties going up for sale). If we end up with even MORE consolidation, where will that FORCE American journalism as we know it today? In my own experience, we've had huge, sophisticated, national advertisers "strongly suggest" stories to us. We don't happen to do this, but let's say we do a story and that particular advertiser is mentioned/sourced in it. They didn't write it for us, but we pulled some quotes from their press release (standard practice). Have I sold the editorial? They didn't give me any cash per se, but it sounds like a "placed" story to me. It's just the degree and tactical execution that is in question, really.
Tom: given your background in PSYOPS, what's your perspective on the placed stories in Iraq? And can you provide any context?
I guess my real question is, where do we draw the line?