PressEthic

It's disheartening: A Florida paper, having taken the spirit of integrated platforms a step to far, now asks its journalists to occasionally sit in sales meetings and explain their work to potential advertisers. The Washington Post reports that a selection of new journalist hired at the Ft. Myers News-Press get a three-hour training session with the paper's vice president for marketing, and that if, during their reporting activities, they meet a person from the community who complains that the paper's ad rates are too high, they are trained to explain that the rates for the community weeklies are lower. the paper's managing editor saying that it would be "morally wrong," in fact, if the reporter did not convey that information.

The Post story describes other changes the paper has made, and they sound interesting. Reporters file stories, upload them onto the Web and link them to other things they've written. They manage their own portfolios, so to speak, and work on two platforms at all time. That seems smart, efficient--but not unethical.

Having reporters involved in marketing the paper is just plain wrong. It's wrong by itself; no further steps beyond those the News-Press has already taken would be needed to make sully the paper's reporters. No reporter should have to worry about marketing, no matter how integrated things get. To understand this, just imagine a reporter confronting a city official about corruption. Imagine a nuanced, razor's-edge dance between the two, a quiet struggle to determine what information can be printed and what can't. Then imagine the city official, in the middle of all that tension, suddenly bringing up the paper's high ad rates. Must the journalist drop his or her guard and launch into a speech about alternative venues?

Please.