coalition queries newspapers on secret agreements to limit coverage

[Gary Ruskin]

Commercial Alert				May 31, 2000

Commercial Alert, media scholars and activists sent letters today to The
New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post to ask about
their policies regarding secret agreements to exclude certain
perspectives from articles about corporations.  The letter to New York
Times Managing Editor Bill Keller follows.

Dear Mr. Keller:

	We want to inquire about your newspaper's policies regarding secret
agreements to exclude certain points of view from articles in exchange
for a news scoop about corporations.

	On May 29, The Washington Post reported a most troubling example of
this trend.  It said "a publicist hired by United Airlines and US
Airways offered three major newspapers a deal that none of them could
refuse. The pitch: We'll give you the exclusive details of a $5 billion
merger if you promise not to call any outsiders for comment."  According
to the Post article, The Wall Street Journal, New York Times and
Washington Post all agreed, but the deal fell apart because the
Financial Times broke the story on its website.	

	These secret exclusion agreements with corporations or their PR firms
limit the scope of discussion of a news story about corporate conduct. 
They block out voices that offer perspective on corporations, such as
consumer, citizen, public health, or environmental groups.  For example,
the deal with the airlines' PR firm excluded comment from anyone who
might have questioned whether the airline merger was good for citizens,
consumers or the nation's free enterprise ideals.  

	Even worse, these secret agreements betray readers' trust.  By failing
to disclose the nature and extent of these agreements, readers do not
know what information newspapers -- which are supposed to provide news
and analysis -- are purposely hiding from them.

	By adopting such secret agreements, your newspaper basically tells the
story the corporate subject wants you to tell, while pretending to be an
objective news source.  Other voices are excluded entirely from the
discussion and debate, even thought the corporate conduct in question
may affect them personally and deeply.  This in turn sends an implicit
message that these other voices aren't worth hearing, and so they may
not get heard at all.

	Your readers deserve to know the answers to these questions:		
1.	What is your policy regarding the disclosure of agreements to exclude
perspectives, in exchange for a news scoop about a corporation?

2.	Would your newspaper agree to running a box under a news story
disclosing any secret exclusion agreements, indicating what points of
view have been intentionally omitted?
	
Sincerely,

George Gerbner, President and Founder, Cultural Environment Movement;
Dean Emeritus, Annenberg School of Communication
Janine Jackson, Program Director, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
(FAIR)
Robert McChesney, Research Associate Professor, U. of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign; author, Rich Media, Poor Democracy
Mark Crispin Miller, Professor of Media Ecology, New York University
Gary Ruskin, Director, Commercial Alert
John Stauber, Executive Director, Center for Media and Democracy

<----------letter ends here-------->
Following is Howard Kurtz's May 29 article in the Washington Post.

Rules and Restrictions Apply 
By Howard Kurtz

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23859-2000May28.html

Last Tuesday, a publicist hired by United Airlines and US Airways
offered three major newspapers a deal that none of them could refuse.

The pitch: We'll give you the exclusive details of a $5 billion merger
if you promise not to call any outsiders for comment.

The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and the New York Times all
signed on for the ride, even though this would essentially enable the
two airlines to guide the story to a soft landing by bumping potential
critics.

In the end, the deal fell apart. The Financial Times Web site broke the
story about 6:30 p.m., and the three American papers -- which had agreed
not to report the news before midnight -- were free to run their pieces
and seek other comments. But the effort underscored the degree to which
corporate executives, like politicians, are increasingly determined to
shape coverage of their exploits.

"It's a disservice to readers," says Dave Kansas, editor of
TheStreet.com. "If you're not allowed to talk to anyone, you have to get
all your information from the company and past information, and that
puts you in a pretty tough spot."

Paul Steiger, the Journal's managing editor, concedes that "we hate
those kind of arrangements. Often we're able to talk news sources out of
it. Sometimes we just say no." But, says Steiger, "if the news is big
enough, we'd rather give it to our readers with whatever caveats are
appropriate."

Jill Dutt, The Post's assistant managing editor for financial news, says
she agreed to the deal--without knowing it involved Arlington-based US
Airways and United--because "it does a better job for readers to have
the story on the first day than not to have the story. The Washington
Post, regardless if no one is called, can give much better background
and context for the significant issues involved in the deal." Besides,
she says, "I don't want to get beat."

"Admittedly," says Glenn Kramon, the Times's business editor, "you do
feel constrained in not being able to call other people, important
people, because you can't give it away. But it's better than finding out
at 7 at night or midnight and having to scramble. We've been serious
about business news for too long to be cut out of big stories like this,
and it's about time we were included."

Steiger says corporate executives often ask the Journal not to call
anyone when they are about to launch a takeover attempt and "they don't
want the target company to know until the last possible moment." In
Dutt's view, executives want "a clear shot at giving investors your side
of the deal before you get all the naysayers."

And what did the two airlines have in mind? "I really don't have any
comment on that," says Joelle Frank, their New York publicist.

[snip]

<--------excerpt of article ends here---------->

	Commercial Alert opposes the excesses of commercialism, marketing and
advertising.  Commercial Alert's web address is
<http://www.essential.org/alert/>. 

Commercial Alert's materials are distributed electronically via the
commercial-alert mailing list <commercial-alert@lists.essential.org>. To
subscribe to the commercial-alert mailing list, go to
<http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/commercial-alert> or send
the word "subscribe" to <alert@essential.org>.

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Ruskin | Commercial Alert 
1611 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite #3A | Washington, DC 20009
Phone: (202) 296-2787 | Fax (202) 833-2406
http://www.essential.org/alert/ | mailto:gary@essential.org
--------------------------------------------------------------