Food journalism ethics, if any

Interesting piece on whether a local TV station's food-- reporter? critic? eye candy?-- crossed some line, whether said line is relevant or the sort of thing set by crusty old geezers who imagine journalism is what God would do if he weren't slumming at all that other stuff, etc.

http://www.chicagoist.com/archives/2006 ... ethics.php

My feeling: they think about this stuff a lot harder than they need to, because they think everyone's a naive idjit who has to be protected from the risk of believing what they see on TV. Here at LTHForum, we assume everyone's smart enough to know that half of what's posted is blatantly untrue and that many users, such as "JiminLoganSquare," are entirely fictitious creations of multinational PR firms. Once you understand that, and have a few other core principles under your belt (e.g., the Founding Fathers started America as part of a Masonic conspiracy, WWII was actually fought as cover for the war against Venus, etc.), piercing through the bubbleheaded boosterism of a TV report on the latest Lettuce restaurant-- or an LTHForum review of the same-- is the least of your problems.

23-17,
Mike G

Human Unit Gebert: You know too much!!!

I hesitate to just say, "Let 'em keep running their bullshit segments because everyone knows they're bullshit." The tolerance towards mixing advertising and content is getting way too high in my view. I don't really care when it's some dumb TV show like that, but I do care when it's Target taking over an issue of the New Yorker, and I can't help thinking that the one is leading people to accept the other.

Perhaps someone should contact Food Network about infringing on their "Good Eats" trademark ?

bibi rose wrote:I hesitate to just say, "Let 'em keep running their bullshit segments because everyone knows they're bullshit." The tolerance towards mixing advertising and content is getting way too high in my view. I don't really care when it's some dumb TV show like that, but I do care when it's Target taking over an issue of the New Yorker, and I can't help thinking that the one is leading people to accept the other.

Target taking over an issue of the New Yorker? I believe you're referring to the number that had a Target ad every other page or so for many pages and some kind of payoff at the end. It made an impression on me, and that speaks to ad dollars well spent, also one didn't feel that any of the actual writing in the issue was affected, so why would these ads be bothersome...unless you just can't stand Target, which is entirely possible?

Hammond

It wasn't just every other page, Target bought every single inch of advertising space in that issue (Aug 22, 2005). Even those mini-ads in the back of the magazine.

Frankly, I thought it was a great campaign and a great way to distinguish themselves from Walmart, especially to their target demographic. And the ads were tasteful and unique, and fit perfectly (to me) with the visual feel of the magazine.

gleam wrote:Frankly, I thought it was a great campaign and a great way to distinguish themselves from Walmart, especially to their target demographic. And the ads were tasteful and unique, and fit perfectly (to me) with the visual feel of the magazine.

Oh, the ads fit perfectly all right, and that's one big reason why I thought the campaign completely took over the experience of reading the magazine. Maybe that feeling was intensified because I read the issue straight through and pretty much in one go.

For me, a magazine is a lot more than writing, and that's especially true of the New Yorker. While I thought a lot of the Target-commissioned art was good, well, it was good in a New Yorker way, only with Target logos and stuff. It was not set off from the text and/or actual New Yorker art as clearly as ads are in most issues.

A matter of taste, I suppose, and also of what you think a magazine should be like, but my feeling was that the balance was wrong here.

(Edited to add: By the way, I am a big fan of Target and shopped at one less than a week ago.)