This article reminded me of this one about travel writing. Travel is very big business. And who are the advertisers? Sometimes prideful, powerful sovereign nations; advertising does not have to be overt as product-placement but positive product-pronouncement.
"When I was at a major U.S. airline, our inflight ran a feature package, an absolute blowjob on the wonders of a certain Caribbean country. The story included a single mention of a broken-down truck on the side of a road and a hotel with paper-thin walls.
Well, guess what? The country’s Chamber of Commerce or some well-connected business group went apeshit over this perceived insult and their indignant screams went up to the national government level and then to the airline’s executive offices...
It just doesn’t make sense for major corporations to risk offending anyone when hundreds of millions of dollars could be lost because some snarky writer getting paid a buck a word wanted to inject a little local color...
And that’s one of the great misunderstandings about travel. The billions at stake. You and I experience travel in the most personal possible way. But in the larger context, it’s a global industry so massive that it’s net worth can’t even be properly calculated."
The business press is where journalists become hacks. Access to executives generally involves so much stroking that
fact-checking, integrity, and good writing are all put aside.
Especially if they're executives at companies that happen to advertise in your magazine/newspaper/website.
If the business press lacks integrity and skips fact-checking responsibilities, then why is it that journalists at the Wall Street Journal have consistently uncovered and published news of wrongdoing at some of the biggest corporations in the United States, including Bear Stearns, Enron, and HP? I can also think of incidents at computer magazines and online game review sites in the past two years in which writers have refused to go along with advertising- and business-related pressures and left or lost their jobs as a result. How do these incidents fit into your theory about the business press?
Certainly the people leaving their jobs fits my theory. Giving up your integrity is not for everyone. And in searching for your sources on Enron I couldn't help but notice that the few good articles were swamped by the bad ones. Enron was Fortune's "most innovative" company for five years straight.
Much of the real business news (such as the nitty-gritty of the Bear Stearns buy-out) is leaked by insiders, so no access to executives is necessary. The Wall Street Journal regularly brutalizes major corporations on the front page, I don't think they follow the theory of the grandparent comment.
"When I was at a major U.S. airline, our inflight ran a feature package, an absolute blowjob on the wonders of a certain Caribbean country. The story included a single mention of a broken-down truck on the side of a road and a hotel with paper-thin walls.
Well, guess what? The country’s Chamber of Commerce or some well-connected business group went apeshit over this perceived insult and their indignant screams went up to the national government level and then to the airline’s executive offices...
It just doesn’t make sense for major corporations to risk offending anyone when hundreds of millions of dollars could be lost because some snarky writer getting paid a buck a word wanted to inject a little local color...
And that’s one of the great misunderstandings about travel. The billions at stake. You and I experience travel in the most personal possible way. But in the larger context, it’s a global industry so massive that it’s net worth can’t even be properly calculated."
[http://www.bravenewtraveler.com/2008/01/17/interview-chuck-t...]