POTTSTOWN, PA – One of the comments from a Save Pottstown!! reader got me thinking.
How many other newspapers publish paid advertisements on their opinion page?
So I did a little researching. I also enjoyed some email correspondence with the editorial divisions of some of the major US newspapers. The ONLY newspaper that turned up in a Google search (when using the search terms “paid advertising” and “opinion page” was The Mercury.
Here’s the article in question (which happens to be in a blog from Mercury Editor Nancy March) back in December of 2008:
http://www3.allaroundphilly.com/blogs/pottstown/nancym/2008/12/new-avenue-of-opinions-opens.html
And guess which genius came up with the brilliant idea to accept paid advertisements on The Mercury’s opinion’s page?
Tom Hylton – Pottstown’s own infomercial!!
As March states in her blog: “The idea was brought to us by former Mercury editorial writer Tom Hylton, whose opinions about matters in town can arrive with more flair and frequency than the average Readers’ View writer.“
Really! Mr. Man About Town Tom Hylton! Mr. Infomercial!
Although…I think the only flair that can be associated with Hylton is in the fashion faux pas department.
Do you think other legitimate US newspapers accept paid advertising on their op-ed page? The New York Times? Nope. The Philadelphia Inquirer? Negatory. The Chicago Tribune? Nada. The Washington Post? Zilch. The LA Times? Never.
The Chicago Tribune even posts its editorial ethics policy online:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-ethicscode,0,5293962.story
So…where is The Mercury’s ethics policy? Why isn’t it posted online??
It’s obvious The Mercury doesn’t have an ethics policy…because none of their writers or content seem to adhere to any resemblance of ethics. Nancy March’s comments confirm that fact – why else would a respectable newspaper accept paid advertising on their op-ed page?? The fact that Mercury reporter Evan Brandt didn’t recuse himself from writing demonizing articles on the proposed centers concept for the Pottstown School District is a big ethical blunder in my book.
How about at least a disclaimer that the reporter has a child in the school district – at one of the schools that would have been affected??
So, how is it that The Mercury can ethically justify accepting paid advertising on its op-ed page…but every other real newspaper in the US will not condone the practice?
Hmmm. I find ethics lacking at The Mercury. Another Tom Hylton “Git R Done” special.
Why am I not surprised?
No wonder their paid subscription numbers are in the toilet. Who wants to read a paper stuffed with advertising – and one that glorifies its advertisers in stories and articles? No thanks. Other truthful and unbiased news sources are readily available.
The way I see it is that Tom Hylton is desperately trying to save the two things that has defined his “purpose” over the past 36+ years: The Mercury and Neighborhood Schools.
Both are going the way of the dinosaur in Pottstown. They’re both outdated and serve no purpose in Pottstown….kinda like Hylton.
Bravo! Like I said in a prior post, The Mercury long ago morphed into some kind of cross between a newspaper and a grocery store tabloid, displaying only the worst qualities of both. It’s a good thing it has those 30-year-old Pulitzers to laud over us. It’s hard to imagine any more coming down the pike.
It’s interesting to note that Evan Brandt never wrote any articles extolling the virtues of Pottstown public schools until his son started particpating in some of the activities. For many years, the elementary schools participated in a Reading Olympics program in Montgomery County and ofted did very well when they went head-to-head with schools with more privileged children. Did Evan Brandt ever cover that event? Not until his own son participated…. all of a sudden it was newsworthy – when Evan could use it to brag about his child. Now… I’m sure his son is a delightful child. I’m sure he is honest and hardworking and bright. I am NOT trying to take anything away from the young Mr. Brandt…. only to make the point that the local paper can be a force for positivity or a force for negativity, and the choice should not be based on the personal interests of one reporter, one editor, or one former editorial writer. The “Third Estate” is supposed to be acting on behalf of the GREATER good, not the good of its own individual members.
I somewhat agree with the sentiments of the above post, but perhaps not so strongly as our host, “Save Pottstown”. I think saying that the Mercury or implying that the Mercury editor has no ethics is a bit over the top.
It is true that the Mercury has favored Mr. Hylton’s ideals over the years. For example the constant printing of the provocative label “mega-school” when the school board was debating a downtown campus was indeed very prejudicial and also extemely damaging to Pottstown. On the other hand, remember last year when Tom wrote or encouraged his cohort, then Council President David Garner, to write the letter to the County wherein Garner had stated that he was sending Hylton to Harrisburg, and the County Commissioners, to discuss economic development plans for Pottstown without the knowledge of the rest of Council? It was obvious to all that the plan was typical Hylton back-door politics in the making. The Mercury disclosed that letter, even publishing it in its entirety. The result was that Hylton operatives Garner and Berry lost their positions as Council President and Vice President in an unprecedented vote to strip them of their offices. And consequently the voters finished the job this past November.
In all fairness to Nancy March, she is correct in that newspapers everywhere are changing their ideas about what they once considered sacred. She was also simply stating facts when she said, “The idea was brought to us by former Mercury editorial writer Tom Hylton, whose opinions about matters in town can arrive with more flair and frequency than the average Readers’ View writer.“ Perhaps she didn’t anticipate just how much mis-information Tom would deploy with those paid ads by telling only half the truth, and taking facts out of context. Perhaps she wouldn’t make the same decision now, more than a year later. We have no way of knowing.
Here’s an idea: Maybe “Save Pottstown” could also buy a block of editorial ads by soliciting donations around town. There would be plenty of folks who would contribute. The ads could be used to simply tell “the rest of the story”, as Paul Harvey used to say.