Wow. One reason I read every email I get is that you guys are so smart. I’d paraphrase your responses to this latest storm in a tea-cup, but I couldn’t really put it better than you have. What this suggests to me is that the audience of readers is simply way ahead of the suppliers of journalism these days. You get it. They don’t. And you see what the Internet is doing to these old media power-structures. They’re melting! They’re melting!
Here’s a selection of some of the best emails. Thanks so much. And thanks also for the big jump in donations since this flap started. There’s more good sponsorship news coming as a result of this. When it’s confirmed, I’ll let you know. But Gloria Gaynor said it best. Here are your responses:
“”The deeper question is: can me-zines accept any financing from sponsorship and advertising without these kinds of attacks?” Of course not. And it’s not going to matter if the money is paid directly to the writer or to an intermediary, or if the negotiations are carried out by someone else. But the even deeper question is “So what?” Everybody gets money from somewhere; everybody has temptations to bend to get more–and to keep what they have coming. It’s the totality of your life and work that defends you. Sometimes advertisers support people that they know will support them. Sometimes they support others in hope they will change. So it is with politicians. Some people give money to politicians they know agree with them. Some give money to politicians to try to change their minds. And some politicians respectably shake down people with talk of restrictive legislation that then doesn’t happen–what Fred McChesney called Money for Nothing, in his 1997 book of the same name (Harvard University Press, subtitled “Politicians, Rent Extraction, and Political Extortion.”) Which is why I think campaign finance reform is as much a crock as journalism finance reform would be, and why I think exclusive public financing of politicians would be as good an idea as exclusive public financing of journalists.
“Salon, et. al., are afraid of one frightening reality (at least in their eyes): that the Internet can so leverage the power of one, truly independent thinker, that their product of many “thinkers” is shown for what it really is – a hugely expensive exercise in diminishing returns. Go, man!
“Salon and Inside ain’t worth my telling them where to get off… Their stock value (I believe approaching approximately six corn flakes per share) speaks better than any invective I could muster. Now if Lady Camille could just get a new home for her writings…
“It is kind of funny that people would think that your dependence on the drug companies for therapy is not a conflict, but as soon as they give you any money it is a conflict. I guess if you were in a car accident and say, Gary Condit, pulled you out of your burning car, saved your life, and then paid a cab to take you home, if you wrote anything about Gary Condit you wouldn’t have to disclose the lifesaving, but you’d have to disclose the cab ride.
“Your decision about the taking the Pharma shows me something. Fundamentally, the Left hates business and, of course, “profits.” See how they’re attacking Microsoft because the company doesn’t want the Philadelphia schools system ripping off its software. As Salon explains, it’s not stealing when a poor school district does it. It’s vicious corporate bullying when a company defends licensing laws, though. You’re wrong if you think this issue is just about the pharmaceutical industry, it’s also about YOU making money. You’re not allowed to; you’re a conservative.
“Next time, take the money.
“I wonder if there’s something worth discussing in conflicts of interest that arise amongst journalists who aspire to work for the New York Times. I suspect that sometimes punches get pulled because the person wonders if down the road that’s their dream job and they don’t want anything in print to screw it up. So NYT criticism is left to some specialized outlets (& you). Might also be present in relation to criticism of any big media outlet (Time, Newsweek/Post etc). If a factor, then especially prevalent at places where people keep their resumes updated given the uncertain future (Salon, Inside).
“Obviously Andrew, you need a staff of a couple thousand people. How pissed would the elitist Salon types be? They, who feel they have a divine right to control the press, are already in cardiac trauma over the insolence of Drudge. So, why don’t you get 2,000 staffers to write for you?
“If it weren’t for all the recent fuss @ salon.com, I’d never have known your site existed. I’ll read it regularly from now on. Happy crucifixion….”
The Dish 