Respond To Six Posts, 6 - 7 Sentences Each

Respond to two original responses thoroughly in a manner that invites an extension of the conversation. In other words, “I totally agree with you” is NOT a sufficient response. Each peer response should be approximately 6 – 7 sentences, or a paragraph in length. Response needs strong structure and a logical flow. You don't need to answer the original questions.

Part B

Original Questions

Imagine you’re a magazine editor, and you just published a well-researched article on the potentially dangerous side effects of a new diet drug. The article is one of a series of three articles you are planning on the hazards of diet drugs. The manufacturer of the drug, who buys a significant amount of advertising in your publication for its many products, calls and says, “Don’t ever run an article like that again.” The advertiser (the drug manufacturer who you wrote about in the article) threatens to pull their advertising and not buy advertising from your magazine in the future. 
 
 For this assignment, think about the relationship between editorial content and advertisements in magazines, and how magazines cope with the desire for editorial independence and the drive for advertising revenue. Please complete the following questions.

1. What are the potential impacts and consequences if you do not run the other articles (The articles might contain important health information for your readers) and you keep the advertiser?

2. What are the potential impacts and consequences of you go ahead with the articles? (The drug manufacturer, who is an important advertiser in your magazine, might stop buying ads from you. What if this causes your magazine financial trouble - like cutting jobs or even going bankrupt? )

3. After outlining the consequences of both sides, please answer -- what would you do as the editor? Why?

Student A's post

1. Magazines used to be a form of investigating and would inform the public on issues and concerns. Nowadays, magazines print more topics related to pop-culture and celebrities. In the case scenario of the potentially dangerous drug, people have the right to know. However, this doesn’t mean that the magazine will print it if it hurts their company. For example, “the cozy relationships between some advertisers and magazines have led to a dramatic decline in investigative reporting, once central to popular magazines during the muckraking era” (Media & Culture, 310). The main consequences and impacts that can occur are that people will not be well-informed, another magazine might publish the article instead gaining more popularity, and the magazine company may not be as respected. If I were to not print the other articles, it would make me look desperate for money and it would seem as though I

don’t care about the information being published. Although I would keep my advertiser, which brings in a lot of revenue, the integrity of the company and myself could diminish.

2. Considering the amount of revenue advertisers bring in, it is not surprising that it would be difficult to choose whether to run the article or not. According to the reading, “A top-rated consumer magazine like People might charge more than $357,000 for a full-page color ad and about $115,000 for a third of a page black-and-white ad” (Media & Culture, 310). If I were to run the other articles, I would have the potential of losing a substantial amount of money. This can also lead to other advertisers not wanting to buy ads. For a well-known magazine like Glamour, this loss of money would be difficult to lose but could also be made up. However, if it is a continuous spiral of other advertisers not wanting to buy ads, this can cause the company to have serious financial trouble.

3. It is difficult to decide which avenue I would feel most confident doing. Many magazine editors think of the readers as more of consumers than citizens, according to the reading. Personally, I would choose to run with the other articles. My integrity as editor in chief would be questioned if I put money before the quality and content of my magazine. My job as an editor is to decide what is worth publishing, and considering that my reader's health could be in question should outweigh the consequences of losing advertisers. Although the revenue of advertisers is a big factor in the success of my business, I would rather have reliable and informative content. Many publishers are scared to take chances with their magazine and the topics being discussed, but that's what makes all magazines so similar. If I didn’t take a risk publishing the articles, my magazine would be just like all of the others on the market and the health of my reader's could be in danger.

Student B's post

1. If the editor does not run any articles that interferes with their magazines funding, then they are already on their way to becoming a biased source and are therefore extremely limited in their writing. A magazine that is limited in this sense is subjecting itself to anti constitutional ideals and removing the 1st amendment of freedom of the press. If found out, the magazine has the potential to lose many readers and eventually go bankrupt. The magazine can also spread misinformation or specifically in this case, fail to inform the readers of the dangers of a drug. This is immoral and an endangerment of society. People’s safety and need for information has to come first and if any media sources including magazines and newspapers need to incorporate these ideas to be successful.

2. If the magazine was to run the article regardless of the fear of losing their funding the magazine may go bankrupt or have to cut their expenses and may have to lay off workers. The financial impact that running this add would have would depend on the percentage of funding that was coming from the ads that are being pulled.

3. As the editor, I would selfishly not want to run the ad in order to protect the financial wellbeing of the magazine but after careful consideration I hope that I would make the right decision and run the ad. All media sources should be moral and their main objective should as I wrote before, focus on the wellbeing of the people. People get all of their information directly from media, or from people who have been in contact with the media or have read or seen something somewhere. The spread of accurate and truthful information is so important to daily life. This is why running the article about the drug is so important. If I as the editor decided to let this article disappear and never be published, the loss of life or sickness that can occur from this add could be somewhat my responsibility and damage. It could also lead to larger decisions in the future that cause me to shut down many other articles do to threats of losing business.