|
|
 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|
||||||||||
|
Send to receive updates when new columns are added to Reform. Andrew Sullivan's Descent by Ken Sanes I'm having trouble seeing why so many people are impressed with the journalistic web site of Andrew Sullivan. His "Daily Dish" column of brief items doesn't strike me as particularly interesting. And Sullivan frequently exercises poor judgment, such as when he recently excused the use of deception in a column in Slate magazine. But Sullivan is not only popular, he seems to have lurched from controversy to controversy in a way that may actually have benefited his career. I can't help but think that things won't continue this way and that Sullivan is heading for a self-generated fall. Certainly, the latest controversy he is involved in suggests that he is now putting his career at risk. In this controversy, he is being criticized because he strongly defended drug companies in his editorial work and then allowed the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, a powerful industry trade group, to become a sponsor of his web site. Critics say it is a conflict of interest for Sullivan to defend the drug industry and also receive money from it. Sullivan says his web site has as much right to accept sponsorships and advertisements as any larger publication. The issue is being done to death (including three pages in Salon), so I won't delve too deeply into the ethical permutations and recriminations (many of which are the same). Suffice to say that, if the facts are as presented, I don't think Sullivan did anything wrong since there is no reason to believe he defended the industry in exchange for a payoff. The cause and effect appears to be the other way -- the industry wanted to advertise on his site because it sees the site as a sympathetic space for its message. Although there are potential conflicts of interest there, they are the same conflicts caused by similar advertising deals that larger media companies make all the time. But the issue does seem to be another instance in which Sullivan is creating his own problems. After all, he should have known how this would look to an ethics-conscious industry. In addition, Sullivan may have sabotaged himself by failing to notify one of the most important publications he writes for, the New Republic, of the deal with the trade group. The New Republic clearly had a right to know ahead of time since the deal was potentially controversial and the magazine might have needed to publish disclaimers if Sullivan wrote about the drug companies for it in the future. Sullivan told Salon that his webmaster did notify the New York Times, which he also writes for, ahead of time. That was a smart move, although it doesn't mean his relationship with the Times hasn't been harmed by the bad publicity. But, according to an email Salon received, Sullivan failed to similarly notify the New Republic, which may have left an editor or two feeling like they were left twisting in the wind. Here is the operative paragraph from Salon: "In an e-mail message, Peter Beinart, editor of the the New Republic, where Sullivan writes the prestigious and widely read TRB column, wrote: 'Andrew did not consult with me before making this decision. And should he write about the pharmaceutical industry for TNR, he will disclose the relationship.' " Under pressure, Sullivan has killed the deal with the drug industry trade group, although he says he will now run their ads for free. But I have an uneasy feeling we are dealing here with the Coyote syndrome from the Roadrunner cartoon, with Sullivan ensnaring himself in his own ACME contraptions. All of which should serve as a cautionary note to publications and Sullivan's conservative fans -- be careful who you hitch your wagon to. The horse in front may be heading for a nearby cliff.
|
|
||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||
