Will more advertising destroy the studentBMJ?
Jason O' Neale Roach and Gavin Yamey discuss the pros and cons of sponsorship
Advertisements are OK
The studentBMJ is investigating the concept of sponsorship. The idea is that
companies associate themselves with
some of our sections, such as "Netphiles,"
"Planning your elective," and book reviews.
These sponsors would have no control over
editorial content, but would be prepared to
pay for the prominence of their name on the
page or website concerned. We would like our
readers to decide how we proceed by using
our new web poll on WebExtra, part of studentbmj.com.
The danger feared by some editors is that we
may be tempted to alter our content in order to
flatter the advertisers. We do not intend to let this
happen. Readers trust our content to be reliable.
In order to maintain this trust, they need to be
able to identify the difference between advertising and editorial easily. Why then would an advertiser want to be associated with the page if they
had no control over its content? Ann Hadley, an
editor at Click Network has summarised some of
these reasons, which have become particularly
important for web based companies.1
The company gets to wrap their brand around content
that appeals to the audience they want to
reach. They also reach people who are likely
to use their products and services and who will
be most receptive to their message. None of
this compromises editorial integrity because
they trust us to deliver a powerful enough message to draw the audience it wants to reach,
rather than plugging its capabilities. They do
not pick books, films, or websites to be
reviewed. It is enough to have their name associated with the pages.
We will target companies whose products
are only indirectly associated with
the editorial content. For
instance, a computer manufacturer might support "Net.philes," or a stationery
supplier the book
review section.
It seems appropriate to get a
travel agent to
sponsor the
"Planning your
elective" section, especially
if it means added
value for our readers in terms of
cheap flight bookings or travel guides.
This is not the start
of a slippery slide. We
do not intend to allow
advertising and editorial to merge into one,
and so we will develop clear guidelines on
what is acceptable. They will be made explic-
it to you the readers and will be reviewed reg-
ularly. There is no doubt that the most
intrusive and integrated advertising ideas gen-
erate the most revenue. But we are very clear
about what we want to do.
Many other magazines students read contain sponsored sections. Our student advisers
said that they are not bothered about this, as
long as it does not get in the way of the editorial content. As I have outlined, this should not
happen. This is a decisive and singular step to
help generate income, while not degrading
the quality or prestige of the journal.
Jason O' Neale Roach, editor, studentBMJ
- Hadley A. Editorial vs advertising. Click Network. www.searchz.com/Articles/0216991.shtml
Sponsorship will distort the studentBMJ
The studentBMJ has, until now, refused to be
manipulated, persuaded, or bought by corporate industry. It has a reputation for editorial independence. In the June issue, for
example, a third year medical student wrote
that, "the studentBMJ is produced for students,
by students, free from outside influence."1
All this will change if private companies
are allowed to "own" certain sections. The
journal, bowing down to the dollar sign, will
lose its credibility and integrity in two important ways.
Firstly, sponsorship will determine
content, despite what the student
editor believes. Once a private
corporation is paying for a section, it can undoubtedly influence
its pages, even if the process
is subtle and almost
unconscious.
One good example of this kind of "thought
control" comes from the United States. The
Weekly Reader is a student newspaper that publishes news and current events for students
aged 11 to 16. In 1991, it was "acquired" by a
tobacco corporation. It is fascinating, and worrying, to see how its content changed after the
acquisition. From 1991 onwards, the newspaper began portraying tobacco as something
attractive to teenagers, like forbidden fruit.2
The paper started focusing on the supposed
popularity of smoking, the threat of its prohibition, and the restrictive policies aimed at discouraging teenagers from smoking. The
tobacco industry had managed to control public access to smoking related news.
At the Weekly Reader, the owners managed to be in control while remaining invisible. At the studentBMJ, the owners of each
section will similarly "guide" the authors
and editor in their choices, even though
they will be acting from behind the scenes.
Secondly, sponsorship will distort the studentBMJ because it will make it accountable
to its sponsors rather than its readers.
While a free press is able to represent the
interests and identity of its readership, a
sponsored press becomes little more than
an industry puppet, whose role is to maximise profits. What if an elective report criticises the travel service that sponsors "Life"?
It is naive to think that our sponsors will
allow such criticism. They will want to keep
their pages firmly "on message."
Noam Chomsky, arguably the most important intellectual alive, and certainly the most
quoted, describes a propaganda model in which
the media plays the role of a propagandist,
transmitting biased information from its corporate sponsors.3
The studentBMJ will similarly do its masters' bidding without even being asked. The journal should listen to the late
comedian Bill Hicks, who raged
against the "bile and filth" of sponsorship. During one of his notorious stand-up routines, he
screamed: "Quit putting a God
damn dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet."
Gavin Yamey editorial registrar, BMJ
studentBMJ 2000;08:259-302 August ISSN 0966-6494
- Bickle I. Forum for debate studentBMJ 2000;8:250-1.
- DeJong W. When the tobacco industry controls the news: KKR, RJR, Nabisco, and the Weekly Reader Corporation. Tobacco Control 1996;54:142-8.
- Herman ES, Chomsky N. Manufacturing Consent. London: Vintage Books, 1988.
