David Wallis: "A Certain 'Get Along' Attitude is Endemic in the Upper Echelons of the Media"
The editor of a new anthology of articles deemed "too hot to print" says that many top editors are becoming more "gun shy" when choosing stories to publish because they are increasingly "worried about their own pockets."

By Patrick Phillips
I Want Media, 06/10/04

David Wallis is the founder of Featurewell.com, a Web-based syndicate that markets articles by more than 1,000 prominent journalists. Wallis is also the editor of a noteworthy new book, "Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot To Print" (Nation Books), a collection of provocative articles that were killed by leading publications -- Esquire, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone, and others -- mostly because they might have attracted lawsuits or offended advertisers, editors, or, as Wallis says, "a powerful interest."

The volume includes the "censored" work of many well-known writers, among them P.J. O'Rourke, Todd Gitlin, Larry Doyle, Douglas Rushkoff, and Robert Fisk. Wallis, who is a freelance writer for the New York Times Magazine and other publications, claims that many top editors have "risen to positions of power" due to their "editorial cowardice."

I Want Media: Is your new book "Killed" an offshoot of Featurewell.com?

David Wallis: Absolutely. Many writers have submitted terrific stories to Featurewell that had been killed. And I occasionally dropped my jaw, wondering why all these great stories weren't being published. The book originally started out as an overview of stories that didn't make the grade, but were quality journalism. As I started talking with reporters and editors, I realized that this was a book about censorship.

IWM: Why were most of the stories in this book killed?

Wallis: Not every story was killed because of a political reason, or because of not wanting to upset a powerful interest. But most were. It's true that plenty of killed stories deserve to be killed. But there are a lot of gems out there. Sometimes they find a home in another publication. But the real contentious ones have a harder time finding a home.

IWM: Why is that?

Wallis: A lot of editors have risen to positions of power because they know not only what to run, but they know what not to run. There's a certain "get along" attitude that is endemic in the upper echelons of the media.

Also, since 9/11, we're in an incredibly cautious time. There's sort of a chill in the air, I think. It started with Ari Fleischer and his comment, "Americans should watch what they say." But subsequent events -- like Howard Stern and the crackdown on indecency -- stem from a government message that has been sent out. We now live in a culture of censorship.

IWM: Do you believe that this so-called "get along" attitude among editors is widespread?

Wallis: Well, have you ever seen an article condemning the Hummer in a magazine? You won't. They're big, big advertisers.

There are fewer and fewer outlets to run hard news stories. Have you ever noticed how many "cute animal stories" there are in the media? Both in print and on TV? I recently saw one about a dog with a 12-inch tongue! Even national news broadcasts will end their story about the cat that can take a pee like a human.

I've been told that if you're a TV producer and you deliver a "cute animal story" you get extra praise from your bosses. Because that's what a lot of people like to see.

IWM: What's wrong with giving the customer what they want?

Wallis: I personally feel that the media should be tastemakers, rather than just following public polling data and being driven by focus groups.

IWM: You describe such self-censorship in your book as "editorial cowardice." But don't editors have to face certain business realities?

Wallis: In the days when there were more independent publishers there was more insulation. Media consolidation has contributed to this. Editors were once more likely to take on a powerful interest and withstand a difficult advertising period as an independent rather than as part of a publicly traded corporation. Increasingly, editors at major newspapers get part of their compensation by stock ownership.

If you're an editor who is paid by stock, are you more or less likely to drive down the price of the stock by tackling a contentious story? Or are you more likely to suppress the piece? When you're worried about your own pocket, you might be a little more gun shy.

IWM: The book includes an article by Erik Hedegaard about spending a day smoking cigarettes with rocker John Mellencamp, who had been ordered to quit smoking after his heart attack. Editors at Details magazine killed the piece, purportedly out of fears that it could offend tobacco advertisers ...

Wallis: In my opinion, many publications soft-balled coverage of tobacco because tobacco companies were major advertisers. A lot of editors made conscious decisions not to publish information about tobacco and its dangers.

IWM: Are more and more articles being run past the advertising department for their O.K.?

Wallis: Let's just say that the so-called wall between editorial and advertising is now a fence, and a rickety one at best.

There was a time when editors at magazines and newspapers would put a great story out, and worry less about the ramifications. There's much more of a corporate culture today, where the editor is more of a CEO.

Editors are now much more likely to think, "Will this story get us into trouble? Will it depress our company's stock?" I think those issues do come up in the minds of many editors. Not all of them. Certainly there are a lot of courageous journalists today doing important work. But they're a growing minority.

IWM: Another story in the book is a satire of publicists that was killed by Us magazine. You say that Us had feared the piece would offend the powerful Hollywood PR machine. Since entertainment magazines rely on publicists for access, why did they assign such a story?

Wallis: I talked to an editor at Us, who told me very clearly that when the piece came in they realized that it might hurt their access to celebrities. You know the old saying, "Careful what you wish for"? I think they wished for a tough, funny, nasty piece, and they got it. They killed the piece before they received the rewrite.

IWM: Another story in the book, an exposé on college fraternity life, was killed by Tina Brown at Talk magazine. But it didn't seem so controversial. Why was it killed?

Wallis: Not every story in the book is controversial. I just loved that story. I thought it was a great read. It has some really graphic, disgusting details of frat life. And I could see Tina Brown reading it and and going, "Eeew!" and killing it. I just wanted that story out there.

IWM: "Killed" has its own Web site, KilledStories.com. What is its purpose?

Wallis: It's going to be an online forum for discussion of the book. I will post even the critical letters. I'm not going to censor!

I expect to receive quite a few anonymous comments. There's a lot of fear out there among freelance writers. It's getting harder for freelancers to make a living. Pay rates are frozen in amber. The top writers certainly do fine. But there's a lot of economic fear.

This also is an incestuous business. It's not a secret that magazine editors talk to one another. I don't know if there are blacklists per se, but I think informal blacklists do exist. It can be easy for a writer to get the tag of "difficult."

IWM: You continue to work as a freelance writer. Do you fear that this book may get you blacklisted by certain editors?

Wallis: I'm in a good position. I run a company that has over 1,000 clients. I don't depend solely on writing freelance assignments for my income. That said, if I did, maybe it would have made me think twice about doing this book. I don't know. However, I expect that certain publications that take hits in this book may no longer want to work with me.

IWM: How does Featurewell work?

Wallis: Featurewell syndicates the work of more than 1,000 independent writers. We take stories that have appeared in publications and resell them in other markets. So, if an article runs in a newspaper in Cleveland, for example, we try to resell it in Philadelphia, or Australia, or Ireland, or Singapore. We give the writer 60 percent of the gross.

I've written a tremendous number of small checks for writers. I think, $150, $120 sometimes, $72 sometimes. But I get letters back from the writers saying that it can make a difference for them. So, I feel pretty good about it.

We also represent magazines and newspapers. We handle work that appears in the New York Observer, Reason, and The Hill in Washington, D.C., among others.

IWM: What is the message of "Killed"?

Wallis: There have been many reports about a growing public cynicism of the media. But I think if you put out a good news product, people will come. I hear a lot about how the media are eager to attract the 18-to-35 demographic. That age group has been turning away from newspapers and magazines.

I would posit that public cynicism of the media contributes to some extent to that drop-off. When an editor kills a story that readers need to know about, ultimately it is just going to foster public cynicism about the media. And then you're just hurting your own business.



PREVIOUS "MEDIA PEOPLE"