Industry Pros Term Elliott Wilson's Back Cover Ad "Offensive" & an "Egregious Violation" of Ethics
In my update to the post regarding XXL Editor-in-Chief Elliott Wilson's appearance in a Rocawear ad on the back cover of the upcoming 10th Anniversary issue, I revealed my next step:
I am in the process of contacting bloggers with journalistic backgrounds from outside the world of hip hop to share their opinions on whether the back cover image above is or is not an example of crossing the advertising/editorial divide.
Normally I would come back with a post of my own discussing why I feel that this crossing has so obviously occurred but I want to reach some of the people who shut down when I say such things, in particular, hip hop bloggers with journalistic aspirations.
Since I was contacting very busy people with way too much work, it did not surprise me that I only got two responses, one of them telling me that they hope to get back to me later in the week. Fortunately, the other response was from one of my favorite publishing industry bloggers, Paul Conley.
You can check out Paul's background for yourself but the man is official. Here's an excerpt from his comments:
The photo in question is offensive. And in the world of news or serious journalism, it would clearly be a violation of editorial ethics...What's interesting about the XXL photo is that it may be an all-new form of unethical behavior. As far as I know, no editor-in-chief in the history of magazine publishing has ever appeared as a spokesperson for products sold by an advertiser.
Paul also suggested I contact Tony Silber, editor and publisher of FOLIO, the leading trade publication for the magazine industry, and he responded in an email:
I did a poll around the office, and everyone thinks it’s a pretty egregious violation, so we’re going to be following it up.
Mr. Silber also stated on the phone that he did think there were earlier examples of editors in ads but I think Paul's response relates just how startling this ad appears whether or not this is a historical moment. I look forward to FOLIO's coverage and will follow up as appropriate with additional comments from other industry professionals.
PS - I knew "egregious" was bad but I had to look it up to be sure:
e·gre·gious...
–adjective
1. extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant: an egregious mistake; an egregious liar...
—Synonyms 1. gross, outrageous, notorious.
I look forward to that article in FOLIO...
Posted by: Hashim | July 26, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Me too.
Posted by: Clyde Smith | July 26, 2007 at 12:58 PM
As a writer in the hip-hop industry, I agree with your point. I also think that it's indicative of the lack of ethics in hip-hop as a whole. And it will provide detractors with even more fodder.
Posted by: demi | July 29, 2007 at 01:26 AM
I don't see why you think it's such a big deal. You treat this joke like a new low in hip-hop journalism.
Sure, it shows a lack of ethics, but I don't think it's that serious. You are talking about a music magazine, it's just entertainment. So, if Elliott Wilson plans to apply for a job at Newsweek it's gonna be held against him, sure. But in real life no one cares that the editor of XXL appears in an ad for a fashion brand he doesn't even wear.
I mean, you're talking about a mag that had 11 covers in a row with Universal records artists ! Do you really think appearing in an ad for a street wear company is going to influence the content of the mag ? Do you know if he got paid to do this ad ? Probably not.
How is this worse than having Benzino on the cover of The Source for example ?
Posted by: SLurg | July 29, 2007 at 07:16 PM
It's not a NEW low for hip-hop. It's simply another example--like the Benzino cover or XXL putting Interscope artists on their covers repeatedly.
It doesn't matter if Elliot wears Rocawear or not--he reviews music. And Rocawear is tied to one of the most powerful musician's in the hip-hop industry. It could effect reviews or even the amount of coverage certain artist's get. It could definitely effect content.
But whether it does or not, it is still unethical by any standards--Newsweek's standards, or hip-hop's low standards that we've all come to accept.
Posted by: demi | July 29, 2007 at 08:20 PM
It's not like if he didn't cover every single move Jay Z makes anyway.
Record companies are paying journalists to write biogs or liner notes for albums every week. Record companies are offering flights (and hotels) to Europe or Jamaica to journalists all the time. That has much more effect than a lousy ad.
Is it unethical ? I think it is, but it's nothing new.
Posted by: SLurg | July 30, 2007 at 06:24 AM
I hear what you're saying.
Nevertheless I believe that blatant violations of a profession's ethics are worth pointing out when displayed so visibly by such a prominent figure.
It's kind of like the Emperor's New Clothes and I'm just doing what I can to undermine the collective hallucination.
Posted by: Clyde Smith | July 30, 2007 at 09:23 AM