RSSKudos To Harry McCracken for Resigning from PC World
Steve Cohn, editor-in-chief of min tells a story about David Carey, current publisher of Conde Nast Portfolio and ex-publisher of The New Yorker. Apparently, though Carey had an inkling of what topics might be discussed in any given issue, he did not see the final articles before Sunday, when it was way too late to make changes to the issue. No messing with the church/state wall.
If you’ve been paying attention, you already know that Harry McCracken now-ex-EIC at PC World has resigned over an argument with CEO Colin Crawford regarding an article reportedly entitled “10 Things I hate About Apple.” Supposedly, Crawford wanted changes made and McCracken would not compromise and then resigned. Media reports and Crawford tell different stories on what exactly happened and what the details of the situation are.
Regardless, McCracken is no longer EIC of PC World, a brand he worked for for 12 years, and the reason has something to do with Crawford meddling with an article–both sides have admitted these facts.
So, who was in charge at PC World editorially? McCracken’s resignation tells us that it was no longer him at that point, and this is very dangerous. Crawford is a smart publishing executive and lets readers know through his blog (also the official statement on the matter from PC World at this point) that “There is no shift in editorial policy at PC World, editorial integrity remains a core value and this will not change.” But how can we think this is true? We don’t know for sure exactly what the disagreement was about, but we do know that Crawford read an article for a future issue, had a problem with it, and attempted to have it changed. That shows a lack of editorial independence, if not integrity.
Kudos to McCracken for making a stand. As an editor, it’s easy for me to applaud when editors do something for themselves; but this is not simply a case of that. McCracken, through his attempt to maintain control of the publication, was also attempting to maintain the reputation, and ultimately, the value proposition of the publication.
This is a sad week for PC World: they lose both a veteran leader on the editorial side and some integrity, too.
The Apple Twist
Has anyone considered the way this might damage Apple? An article in PC World called “10 Things I hate About Apple” might have had some minor effects, maybe have garnered some publicity. But this little incident has brought Apple a lot more negative attention–and with only the title of the article! If, in fact, Crawford was acting out of deference to an advertiser (which is not necessarily the case), he may have inadvertently done more harm than good.
Loading ...
So if the EIC wants to run an article that is just flat out wrong, who is to say that the publisher shouldn’t force a change. Its all just opinions, who is to say the EIC’s is better than the publisher? Maybe it wasn’t about advertising dollars, maybe the EIC had the story wrong.
This is a good point. However, my opinion on this matter is that it is the EIC’s ballgame to lose at this point–the publisher shouldn’t really be reading the articles with editorial eyes. I have no problem with publishers and marketers knowing what’s going on editorially so they can sell the content, but their input into the content should be severely limited or nonexistent. Again, my opinion.
A publisher should have an EIC that s/he trusts enough to make those tough decisions without hard oversight. The buck should stop at the EIC’s desk. Maybe that’s the issue here. Maybe Crawford and McCracken didn’t see eye-to-eye on enough things and this one difference of opinion was the proverbial straw–or the scapegoat.
Looks like Harry gave ‘em hell.
In a perfect world, there would be total independance of editorial from the business discipline. The departure from the perfect world occured years ago, my friends; it was the moment that the advertising side of the revenue equation surpassed ( and now totally dominates) the revenue generated from subscription and single copy sales. The convention these days has advertising accounting for 95%+ of the revenue stream. Readers are expensive to find, and pay little when they come aboard.
So, you can maintain editorial independance right into the magazine graveyard, or you can be more cautious about how you take companies, products, or services to task. With the whole magazine industry in a delicate state of balance, you can ill afford to make a mistake that becomes the domino that topples the enterprise.
Editors can make mistakes in judgment; their contributors often don’t do nearly enough research, and the by product is not absolute- editors need a check and balance.
At the end of the day, the magazine is a BUSINESS, and it needs to produce earnings, and those earnings are rooted on the support of advertisers who have countless media options, and increasingly so.