Stereophile
New member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 442
- Thread Author
- #1
<p><img class="story_image" src="http://www.stereophile.com/images/669think.prmo_.jpg" /></p>
You could sense the frustration in Keith Pray's e-mail. "We are on the same team. I have always respected your wishes and will continue to do so," he had written me. At the request of a possible advertiser, <i>Stereophile</i>'s publisher had asked me a question about something appearing in the issue of <i>Stereophile</i> we were preparing. I had responded that not only would I not give him an answer, I felt it inappropriate for him to ask.
<p>
I wouldn't usually mention an internal and inconsequential matter like this if it weren't for the fact that the day Keith and I had our altercation, the news broke about another magazine editor, who doesn't appear to share my reticence about crossing the "Chinese Wall" between a magazine's editorial and advertising sides. In fact, according to an <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/entertainment/columns/article_1234143.php">August 6 report</a> in the <i>Orange Country Register</i>, the longtime editor of <i>Fanfare</i>, Joel Flegler, doesn't just cross the wall, he leaps over it.
</p><p>
In a <a href="http://blogs.ocregister.com/mangan/archives/2006/07/Fanfare_quid_pro_quo_1.html">July 19 blog</a>, the <i>OCR</i>'s classical music reporter, Tim Mangan, had reprinted a letter Flegler had sent to an independent record company that was inquiring about review coverage in <i>Fanfare</i>. Flegler had proposed a quid pro quo: that while his magazine might review the CD in any case, a way to guarantee publication would be for the company to buy advertising space. Flegler's letter included a list of what ads of various sizes would cost and suggested that the more money the record company spent on advertising in <i>Fanfare</i>, the more editorial about them could be published
[Source: http://www.stereophile.com/content/great-wall-china-0]
You could sense the frustration in Keith Pray's e-mail. "We are on the same team. I have always respected your wishes and will continue to do so," he had written me. At the request of a possible advertiser, <i>Stereophile</i>'s publisher had asked me a question about something appearing in the issue of <i>Stereophile</i> we were preparing. I had responded that not only would I not give him an answer, I felt it inappropriate for him to ask.
<p>
I wouldn't usually mention an internal and inconsequential matter like this if it weren't for the fact that the day Keith and I had our altercation, the news broke about another magazine editor, who doesn't appear to share my reticence about crossing the "Chinese Wall" between a magazine's editorial and advertising sides. In fact, according to an <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/entertainment/columns/article_1234143.php">August 6 report</a> in the <i>Orange Country Register</i>, the longtime editor of <i>Fanfare</i>, Joel Flegler, doesn't just cross the wall, he leaps over it.
</p><p>
In a <a href="http://blogs.ocregister.com/mangan/archives/2006/07/Fanfare_quid_pro_quo_1.html">July 19 blog</a>, the <i>OCR</i>'s classical music reporter, Tim Mangan, had reprinted a letter Flegler had sent to an independent record company that was inquiring about review coverage in <i>Fanfare</i>. Flegler had proposed a quid pro quo: that while his magazine might review the CD in any case, a way to guarantee publication would be for the company to buy advertising space. Flegler's letter included a list of what ads of various sizes would cost and suggested that the more money the record company spent on advertising in <i>Fanfare</i>, the more editorial about them could be published
[Source: http://www.stereophile.com/content/great-wall-china-0]