Last week, Time magazine launched what it calls its ”most ambitious environmental initiative ever”–a two-year, multimedia series spotlighting eco-activists. And in an unusual arrangement, Ford Motor Company signed on as ”exclusive sponsor” of the series, called ”Heroes for the Planet.”

The deal bemused environmentalists, who have long fought Ford–as well as the other auto giants–over air pollution and global warming, and who suspect that Ford’s effort to appear green is just a paint job. But the worst fumes emanated from Time, which seemed to indicate it was willing to smooth the road editorially for the auto giant.

Time international editor Charles Alexander, who’s overseeing the ”Heroes” series, told The Wall Street Journal‘s Sally Beatty that the Ford deal is ”fairly unusual because most of our pages aren’t sponsored by particular people, and most of the time advertisers don’t get to place their ads in certain places.”

And Alexander told the Journal that the series isn’t likely to feature profiles of environmentalists battling the auto industry, just as it would exclude positive stories about carmakers. Such coverage, he said, could run elsewhere in Time: ”We don’t run airline ads next to stories about airline crashes.”

Last week’s Time contained no such awkward juxtapositions. The magazine devoted a 15-page special section–the first installment in the series–to activists fighting to save the oceans. An introduction proclaimed that ”Heroes” would honor people ”who have gladly taken on the task of protecting the natural world from stupidity, greed, and careless commerce.”

Readers of the October 5 issue found a Roger Rosenblatt profile of marine biologist Sylvia Earle, as well as portraits of five other environmentalists. The section also contained five pages of ads for Ford, extolling the company’s green record. Meanwhile, Time for Kids kicked off its own eco-hero series, and Rosenblatt recycled his Earle profile forTime Warner stablemate CNN.

So who will Time profile when it moves from the waters to the air? Alexander did not return a call seeking comment, but Time managing editor Walter Isaacson said concerns that the magazine had rolled over were misplaced. ”I don’t mind Ford buying the series, because we retain complete editorial control, and we will write about whatever we damn please.” As for Alexander’s comments, Isaacson said they ”bothered me and I told him so. I also said that at a meeting, to emphasize its importance.” Automobiles ”have caused pollution,” he added. ”We will definitely say that.”

It is hard to imagine any extensive environmental coverage avoiding the subject. As the Sierra Club’s Dan Becker says, ”Can you do a series like this and ignore one of the primary polluters of our air, a primary cause of half of our smog?”

Indeed, throughout the last decade the auto giants have been eco-villains in scores of environmental battles, and those brawls have produced scores of, um, heroes for the planet. In California, which passed model emissions standards for cars in 1990, activists like the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Roland Hwang have ”had to fight the auto industry tooth and nail,” as he puts it.

When Northeastern states like Massachusetts and New York voted to adopt low emissions standards, the auto giants filed a series of lawsuits. Activists like New York’s Peter Iwanowicz helped defeat them. And in Michigan, community organizers like Brenda LiveOak are battling Ford over the pollution spewing from its Dearborn plant.

Becker, the Sierra Club’s global warming expert, says the single biggest step we can take to slow the greenhouse effect would be to raise the fuel efficiency of cars, since vehicles pump 20 percent of the nation’s global warming pollutants into the air. But the auto industry’s ”conduct on this has been reprehensible. And Ford has been a leading opponent of efforts to curb global warming.”

To be fair, Ford itself has given signs that it may be pulling in for an overhaul. Last week’s Time section included a commercial message from new company chair Bill Clay Ford Jr., the great grandson of Henry Ford. Bill Jr. is a self-professed ”passionate environmentalist”–a ”New Age industrialist,” as Business Week put it last week. But even as its Time ads were declaring that ”You can have any color you want, as long as it’s green,” Ford was backing a ”rider worked out in Congress that sought to gag EPA from even talking about global warming,” says Becker.

It remains to be seen, of course, if the Time series will cover the auto industry after all. It’s not impossible. Alexander is regarded with a good deal of respect among environmentalists, and the ”Heroes” series was his idea. (Isaacson also said, ”If there’s anyone I trust to be tough on the environment, it’s Charles Alexander.”)

In the end, Isaacson said the Ford deal had caused much alarm about nothing much. ”We have a pretty thorough church-state divide between edit and ad–I don’t even know what arrangements were made with Ford. And I’m not particularly concerned.”

The Color of Monica

It may be that asking whether the church-state divide holds in the minds of particular mainstream media mavensis to ask the wrong question. More troubling–and more pointed–lines of inquiry are suggested by the multimedia, corporate networking that produced the Time-Ford package. Indeed, journalists are increasingly part of organizations that are themselves integral parts of infotainment monoliths. And even as journalists maintain their integrity by maintaining ignorance of their organizations’ corporate agendas, synergy is creating muddled lines above the heads of virtuous editors and reporters.

Consider the postures adopted by mainstream journalists over the race to get Monica–to score the hallowed first interview with Lewinsky. Last week, when Roseanne put a million bucks on the table, and Oprah refused to fork any over, major media types lined up with chests puffed out to denounce checkbook journalism. CNN congressional correspondent Candy Crowley put it this way on CNN’s Saturday roundtable ”Reliable Sources”: ”Most reputable news organizations . . . we don’t pay for the interview. If Roseanne wants to pay for the interview, that’s fine. I’m not sure what . . . Oprah’s deal is. . . . I don’t consider either one of them news organizations.”

Added ABC News senior Washington correspondent John Cochran, ”I’ve been trying to find a historical parallel for this. The nearest I can come is David Frost and Nixon. David Frost, a former comedian, pays big bucks to Richard Nixon. Roseanne, comedienne, pays big bucks to . . . Monica. It seems about right.”

But Cochran needn’t have ranged so far back in time. Just last December, ABC’s PrimeTime Live forked over a six-figure sum for footage of an Australian landslide that killed 18 people. Then, ”by a strange coincidence,” as the Washington Post‘sHoward Kurtz noted at the time, ”the ABC program landed an exclusive interview with a survivor, Stuart Diver, whose agent sold PrimeTime the videotape.”

ABC also famously ran 10 free 30-second commercials for Michael Jackson–worth as much as $1.5 million–the week that Diane Sawyer did her live interview with Jackson and then-wife Lisa Marie Presley in 1995.

Both times, ABC news executives denied any cash-for-conversation deal had been struck. Some skepticism may be in order. In the case of the landslide survivor, ABC insisted, ”We did buy footage. We did not buy an interview.” But the executive producer of competitor NBC’s Dateline said at the time, ”It became very clear that whoever gets the tape gets the interview. No matter how you dress this thing up, you are essentially buying the interview. . . . ”

With Jackson, ABC said it had bartered the commercials for the rights to air videos from Jackson’s HIStory album. It was a deal, ABC said, wholly unrelated to the interview–though many wondered why ABC needed to buy videos that MTV regularly runs for free.

Still, what is perhaps most disturbing is that it is possible to concede the network execs’ arguments in both cases without absolving them. After the Jackson barter arrangement became public, Paul Friedman, then executive veep of ABC News, declared himself ”unaware of any deal to run commercials in return for the videos.” But even as ABC News pursued Jackson ”independently,” ABC entertainment prez Ted Harbert was negotiating with Jackson manager Sandy Gallin–also the rep for ABC sitcom star Roseanne. As part of wide-ranging discussions of ”TV programs and ideas related to the release of Michael’s new album,” Harbert referred Gallin to ABC News.

In an age when media conglomerates construct deals in which journalists are just corporate players, can journalists simply hold to their side of the divide and declare themselves pure?


  • William Weld, the Massachusetts Republican who quit as governor to wage a quixotic fight to be ambassador to Mexico, appeared on ABC’s Politically Incorrect last week and made a truly remarkable statement, even for these times. In the course of a discussion of privacy and AIDS, Weld made the following argument in defense of name reporting of HIV-positive people: ”Why all the privacy? Because it’s a stigma. If you have more open discussion, maybe it’s less of a stigma. I mean, you can catch this stuff from a toilet seat.” This comes fresh off a September 27 Sunday Times magazine profile that touted Weld’s ”liberal social views”–not once but three times. . . .
  • In this Sunday’s Times, a story about Richard Gephardt had ”one Democratic strategist” lauding him as ”the greatest listener in the world. . . . Dick Gephardt will listen to individuals for hours.” What does Gephardt hear? The Times‘s Alison Mitchell asked him if he had held ”many one-on-one meetings with House Democrats.” Gephardt’s reply: ”Ones, fives, 10s, 20s, 50s, 100s. You name it. We’ve done it.” Even when asked a question that has absolutely nothing to do with money, Gephardt is thinking in denominations.
  • Archive Highlights