Magazine/Mayor face-off

By Chantal Braganza

A lot of editors, in both magazines and newspapers, will tell you that faces sell copies. When you're standing in front of a news rack tiled over with options, there's just something about the human face on a cover or front page people connect with, especially (duh), when they're famous. 

As Toronto's mayoral race starts to pick up speed, there are two faces I've been thinking about. One is of George Smitherman on the cover Toronto Life, where writer Gerald Hannon profiled him for the March issue. 

 

Courtesy of Toronto Life

It's pretty arresting, as a cover. How many readers would otherwise get to see George this close up? 

The next one is just as striking, but for a different reason:

 Courtesy of the Women's Post

This is Sarah Thomson, another mayoral candidate on a magazine cover. One that she happens to publish—or at least did before announcing she would also join the race as Toronto's first female candidate this race.

Don't get me wrong: this post isn't about pitting the political merits of one candidate against the other. It's about coverage. One magazine decided to run a profile of a candidate it thought was an interesting character. The other used its pages as a political bullhorn for its own publisher.

The Women's Post bills itself as "the only nationally distributed magazine designed specifically for professional women," with a circulation of 70,000. It was started by Thomson, and built by her. But are the pages of your own magazine an appropriate space to advocate for a campaign?

There are actually guidelines against doing this type of thing as promoted by the Canadian Society of Magazine Editors. According to their playbook on keeping advertising separate from editorial—and according to CSME, the cover page is most definitely editorial—Thomson putting her face on the cover of her own magazine is wrong on multiple levels. Namely rules three, six and seven: 

"No advertisement may be promoted on the cover of the magazine or included in the editorial table of contents, unless it involves an editorially directed contest, promotion or sponsored one-off editorial extra..."

"No advertiser may purchase product placement or mention in editorial pages, photographs or illustrations."

"The names and/or titles of editorial staff and regular contributors should not appear on, or be associated with, special advertising sections. Editorial staff should not be required to prepare advertising sections for their own publications, other publications in their field or advertisers in the fields they cover."

Of course, this would assume that what Thomson had run in her magazine was, in fact, advertising. When I called her about it, she explained it to me as an editorial decision.

"I’ve never put myself on the cover because we’ve always tried to find women who are stepping up to the plate," Thomson said, pointing out that up to a year ago her staff had decided if a woman ran for mayor in this election, they would promote her in the magazine. “I ended up going, ‘You know what? I’m going to run,’ and so it’s fit in with our editorial mandate, as a woman running for mayor.”  While that may work, there’s also the problem that in order to put her face and campaign message in the cover and pages of her magazine, Thomson had to pay for the space.

Many industry editors would call paying for space advertising, or advertorial: that fuzzy practice of presenting an advertisement as an objective article or piece. Unfortunately, this situation isn’t a whole lot clearer. She says she was just following municipal election rules by doing so: “With the election financing laws, in my editorial, if I write anything on the election, I have to pay for it,” Thomson said. “So because I was a candidate for mayor and [in her editorial] I was talking about what it takes to run, why I believe I’m a good candidate, I have to pay for that editorial.” Election Services Office director Bonita Pietrangelo told me Thomson was likely referring to a City of Toronto by-law (page 3) that prohibits corporations from making a contribution to candidates for office. By paying for the space, Pietrangelo says, Thomson’s campaign could have filed it as a legitimate expense. “I’m usually a very humble person,” said Thomson. “But you have to step out when you’re writing in politics. You have to expose yourself and take that risk. And people can shoot me down for it, that’s fine, but I’m trying to show other women what it takes."

So what to make of the quandary? “Our philosophy on this is that it’s a matter of perception,” says Bob Sexton, president of CSME and associate editor of Outdoor Canada. “If people are tripping up on something or feel that it smells somewhat, then I think that there’s a problem. The idea is never to present editorial or cross those lines, or intentionally or unintentionally blur those lines.” Regardless of the rules, most readers can tell when a publication is trying to sell them content that's anything less what it's supposed to be: unbiased editorial. Treating readers as if they don't know the difference is a pretty good way to lose them.

Chantal Braganza is a Star intern copy editor and recent graduate of the Ryerson Journalism program. cbraganza@thestar.ca

Comments

[Jennifer]

This actually made me laugh hysterically. Do a bit more research before you quote an untrustworthy "Society" on the issues. Take a look at its board members, pay attention to what actually happens at a lot of their magazines in terms of editorial content, and you'll know what I'm talking about. I don't know where I stand on the Thomson cover issue, but I know I wouldn't look to the CSME for their guidelines when they themselves are made up of proponents of advertorial-izers.

[Tom Westin]

Intern copy editor Chantal Braganza states at the top that the Women's Post cover image is in violation of CSME sections 3, 6 and 7 (though this reader is far from convinced), then says it's a gray area, then suggests it's really just a matter of perception, but grounds, nonetheless, for a reader revolt of some kind, "regardless of the rules." In fact, it is your own readers who should be offended by such a vague, squishy, and ultimately false argument. What a shame that individuals like Ms. Thomson who want to get up and do something (and whom I've never met) are covered so shallowly. How would newspaper publishers-turned-candidates William Lyon Mackenzie, George Brown and Henri Bourassa have measured up under Ms Braganza's squishy scrutiny? Badly, I guess, and we'd be worse off. Priorities, people! How 'bout that TTC?

[Bob Sexton]

Hello Jennifer,

It's Bob Sexton, one of the board members you've insulted and libelled in your post. I'm not really sure where to begin to address your misinformed and malignant opinion of the CSME, but I will try. The board--all volunteers--comprises staff editors from a wide spectrum of magazines including Homemakers, Design Edge Canada, Outdoor Canada and Western Living along with freelance editor/writers who've worked on noted publications such as Canadian Geographic, Cottage Life, The Beaver and many more.

I can speak for the board in saying that those of us who work as staff editors do what we can to uphold editorial integrity in our magazines. At Outdoor Canada, we follow the guidelines to the letter. I know that the board members who work as freelance editors/writers also have a strong commitment to maintaining the separation between editorial and advertising. You seem to have evidence to the contrary and I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss your examples. In fact, perhaps you'd like to come to one of the four professional development events that the board organizes throughout the year and you can present your case. Please feel free to contact us through our web site, www.canadianeditors.com.

Regarding the Thomson issue, I'm not going to pretend that I know all the byzantine regulations of this mayoral election, but if the space on the cover was bought, it constitutes an ad. The cover is considered an editorial page, just like any other editorial page in the magazine, so, therefore, placing an ad on the cover contravenes the industry guidelines.

As you, Jennifer, seem to be such an expert on the guidelines, you'll know that a few years ago, a task force made up of industry veterans streamlined them to reflect changes in modern publishing. Therefore, the guidelines are not, as you suggest, the property of CSME. Still, the goal of the guidelines is the same, to help editors, publishers and advertisers maintain an industry-wide standard for preserving the crucial distinction between editorial and advertising. As there's no overseeing organization enforcing the guidelines, it's up to an individual magazine to adopt and follow them. By the sounds of things, maybe you're the right person to start up an ad-edit enforcement squad. You've certainly proved you're willing to crap on people.

Sincerely,

Bob Sexton
President
CSME