In search of more write-arounds; how magazines can stop being "access" junkies

Magazines are in danger of cashiering their integrity in return for access to celebrities, access that results in vapid, uniformative, misleading and repetitive stories, says Ron Rosenbaum in an article for Slate.

Rosenbaum is particularly ticked off by the recent incident in which an investigative piece about Hillary Clinton's campaign for president in GQ was killed in order to preserve access for a cover story about her husband Bill. This particularly craven example is alarming, he says, because it's not unusual.

For one thing, it won't be just an isolated incident. It will send a signal to politicians that magazine editors are whores for access who can be rolled at will. And then there's the intangible cost: the cost of such behavior to whatever respect is left for the magazine industry from a public that increasingly thinks the mainstream media are in the pocket of the powerful.

It's time for magazine editors to fight this censorship-by-access. Because it's really self-censorship: the false belief that one can't run a probing story just because one is denied the anodyne "exclusive" quotes and the super-special "exclusive" photo of the powerful subject reclining on his or her patio.

Rosenbaum makes a strong case for more use of an old writer's technique: the write-around. In this, a good reporter does the story in spite of denial of access, thereby not having to make any deals.

Celebrity journalism and tabloidization is not so much a problem in Canada because we haven't got the same star system or the proliferation of celeb titles. We can also enjoy the fruits of the American celeb titles second-hand. But Rosenbaum's is still a really entertaining piece.

I'm not saying journalism is war, but it's often a struggle between those with power who want to avoid or control scrutiny and those who feel scrutiny of the powerful is a public service," he says.