James G. Cobb, an assistant business and finance editor at the New York Times who oversees the paper’s auto coverage, responded to a reader’s question about how the paper maintains its objectivity in covering one of its largest advertisers.
Cobb wrote, “Indeed, I’m sure we give our counterparts on the ad side some headaches. I’ve learned, after the fact, of some instances in which ads were pulled because of negative car reviews or other things that advertisers didn’t like. But the phrase ‘after the fact’ is important. In each case, I learned that ads were pulled only from the companies involved, or from media reports, and not from the ad department or from my bosses.
“Fact is, not once in my 14 years in this job has anyone from the ad side made any sort of suggestion about what advertisers might or might not want to read. I’ve heard that this sort of pressure is sometimes felt by editors at some magazines, and perhaps at some newspapers. But it doesn’t happen here, which in my view is one of the greatest things about The New York Times.
“Second, my colleagues and I are bound by the same conflict-of-interest rules that govern all newsroom staff at The Times. We cannot accept any favors from any company, individual or institution, including the expense-paid trips that automakers commonly extend to the automotive press when they introduce new models. (In the fairly rare instances when we attend these events, we pay our own travel and accommodations.) We even pay manufacturers ‘rental fees’ for the use of cars that we test or review. We do this not because we have to (very few other publications do, and we were the first), but because we consider it important to maintain our independence. We don’t want to be in a position where we owe anything to the companies we report on, and that includes the use of a car for a week.”
Read more here.Â
