[philipov]

Do you mean in reality, or in hypothetical not-dysfunctional fantasy world?

Because in reality, the job of an editor is to avoid being fired for angering the corporate sponsors/owner, and anything about ethics, or upholding the standards of the publication, is merely coincidental.

The role of an editor is to implement the owner's plan for the publication, and that means their incentives are clearly aligned if that plan includes paying reporters more for stories that cause their audience to act.

[Angostura]

As someone who edited various technology magazines for a decade or so, I wish someone had told me this. There I was going through life, thinking my job was to ensure a mix of stories that would be interesting to the targeted readership, that read well, that could be properly 'stood up' as factual and didn't land us in too much legal trouble.

Oh - and to make sure the pages were filled on time and budget and that the editorial staff were reasonably happy, and that we referred to companies in the singular.

[raxxorrax]

Wasn't there an article about an editor of pc magazine getting fired for writing some slightly critical articles some weeks ago?

I think the topic is how business interests from corporate sponsors are weighted against factual reporting.

Not saying magazines have much choices, but manufacturers disallowing any criticism speaks volumes about their products. We should strive for more transparency here.

Not that I would expect most tech articles to not be advertising these days. It has become a standard.

[Angostura]

I've no doubt that there are some unscrupulous publishers. I worked at 4 different publishers over the years in the UK, 3 as an editor. The only times I spoke to the publisher about editorial content was (a) When we were producing the feature list for the year (those were heavy ad-gets) (b) on occasions where we had a good story that we thought could cause trouble so I wanted to consult a solicitor first.