[Letter and reply printed in current edition of CJR:]
Whose Supplement?
The Columbia Journalism Review deserves a notable Dart for ambiguity and nondisclosure in the magazine’s twelve-page supplement from The Commonwealth Fund titled “What Will Happen Under Health Reform -- and What’s Next?” (CJR, May/June)
A reference to CJR was in smallish type at the top of the first page: “Supplement to the May/June 2010 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review.” Are we to understand that “supplement” is a euphemism for “advertisement”? I can see why an advertiser would prefer to avoid the less lofty word, especially in pages filled with editorial content. But shouldn’t we expect better of a magazine devoted to raising journalistic standards?
I’d suggest that CJR let readers in on the information they had a right to know in the first place. Did CJR’s editors have any role in putting together those twelve pages? If so, what was that role? If not, why the avoidance of truth-in-labeling words like “paid” and “advertisement”?
Continue reading "An exchange with editors of the Columbia Journalism Review" »