|
Christianity Today has been forced to defend itself after recently
questioning the ethics of film critic Ted Baehr, founder of MovieGuide.
A recent article generated considerable heat and a flurry of public and
private communication, and even
Pat Boone has weighed in on the subject, defending Baehr in a letter
to CT. The May issue of the magazine devotes another page and a half to
the subject.
An
article in the March 2004 issue questioned the ethics of reviewing
films while accepting money to promote them. Baehr admits to accepting
payment for helping market six films over the years, among them Gods
and Generals, Gordy and Left Behind. Reporter Marshall Allen
wrote:
Quote
(Christianity Today):
Ethicist David Gushee,
a professor at Union University in Tennessee, calls Baehr's paid
promotional work unethical because Movieguide—the public branch of his
ministry—presents itself as an independent, donor-supported, Hollywood
watchdog. "There is no way morally a person doing that kind of work
should be receiving money from that industry, because it's a patent
conflict of interest," Gushee says. "He's at least responsible for
making full disclosure of the various roles that he is occupying in the
Hollywood industry."
Several film reviewers say they've never
heard of a movie critic taking money to promote films. One prominent
reviewer said that it's ethically "about as far over the line as you can
go."
Baehr immediately
mounted fierce defense; he solicited comments of support from his
friends and constituents, and wrote a scathing—almost toxic—response on
his website. (A condensed version of the response was printed in CT’s
May 2004 issue.) The rebuttal includes at least half a dozen
inaccuracies, misquoting Allen’s article and accusing him of sloppy
reporting. Worse, Baehr stooped almost to the level of slander with
accusations of anti-trust behavior, bias and hypocrisy. He went so far
as to resurrect a lawsuit from almost a quarter-century ago in an effort
to smear the magazine.
Quote (MovieGuide’s ‘Straight Facts’)
Several years ago, Christianity Today was
sued for trying to destroy its competition and settled out of court.
…the entire sordid affair is documented
in reams of discovery documents obtained during the lawsuit against
Christianity Today back in 1982.
He added that the
case proved that “the officers of Christianity Today were greedy,
unethical, dishonest and corrupt.”
Apparently, the best defense a
no-holds-barred offense. Baehr called CT’s “Inciting
Article” attack journalism and
obvious hypocrisy, potentially slanderous and libelous and
a bitter attack – but defended himself with an article that could
be characterized as obvious hypocrisy, potentially slanderous and
libelous and a bitter attack.
In one of his more
curious objections, Baehr implies that there is no conflict of interest
because he isn’t actually a “reviewer.”
Quote (MovieGuide’s ‘Straight Facts’)
We’re an Advocacy Group – Not Movie
Reviewers
It is well publicized by the Christian
Film & Television Commission™ ministry that we are an advocacy group
registered with the entertainment industry guilds in Hollywood. We
analyze movies as a part of our advocacy role.
However, Baehr then
goes on to refer to himself repeatedly as a reviewer:
Quote (MovieGuide’s ‘Official Response’) (emphasis added):
-Interestingly, the article notes that
Kairos worked on only six of the 5,000 movies that Movieguide has
reviewed in 19 years.
Quote (MovieGuide’s ‘Straight Facts’)
-…because MOVIEGUIDE(r) uses standards
rooted in the Bible, the reviews are biblically credible.
- Attacking competition is unethical.
Furthermore, it is hypocritical of a group like Christianity Today to
accuse MOVIEGUIDE(r) and Christian Film & Television Commission(tm) of
having a "conflict of interest." That in itself is a conflict of
interest since they are in direct competition with
MOVIEGUIDE(r) - they recently began producing reviews of
movies from a Christian perspective.
- Several years ago, Christianity Today
negotiated to buy MOVIEGUIDE(r) reviews to reprint in
their magazine and on their website…
MovieGuide also
describes itself as a movie review provider in the standard disclaimer
that appears with the organization’s syndicated, um, reviews.
Quote (MovieGuide disclaimer) (emphasis
added):
The featured reviews are a
selected sample of informative reviews from MOVIEGUIDE: A
FAMILY GUIDE TO MOVIES AND ENTERTAINMENT, a syndicated feature of Good
News Communications, Inc. For a copy of MOVIEGUIDE, with a complete set
of reviews of the latest movies as well as many
informative articles, please write or call MOVIEGUIDE P.O. Box 190010
Atlanta, GA 31119 (770) 825-0084.
The publications which carry MOVIEGUIDE
and the organizations which distribute MOVIEGUIDE are not responsible
for these reviews, nor is MOVIEGUIDE responsible for the
opinions and positions of these publications and organizations.
Clearly, MovieGuide
reviews movies, and to say otherwise appears to be disingenuous. Baehr
now prefers the term “analyst,” although any distinction may be lost on
the people who subscribe to his service; anyone paying for independent,
unfiltered opinion doesn’t expect a marketing pitch.
Furthermore, Baehr’s
claim that Christianity Today is in a conflict of interest (since CT’s
new movie review section puts them in competition with him) poses a
problem: if CT and Baehr are in competition, then he is also
wrong to attack them.
But all of that is
merely spin-doctoring and deflection: the real issue comes back to
ethics. Is it right to critique an industry—in a subscriber- and
donor-supported role—while simultaneously, secretly working for it? The
worst thing about Baehr’s response is an apparent lack of comprehension
of this inherent conflict.
To me, as a former
journalist, this issue is quite clear: independence means just that… no
outside influence. To serve as advocate for a film consumer and
for a film producer is wrong, especially when that dual role is kept
secret. Imagine a food critic who accepted money to promote a restaurant
that was being reviewed, or an automotive writer who was quietly paid
money by Ford or Chrysler. How about a political correspondent who was
secretly on the payroll of the Republican or Democratic parties? Such
dual roles constitute the very essence of conflict of interest, even if
the writer’s published “analysis” would have been the same with or
without payment.
When I worked as a
broadcast journalist, there were strict rules governing our conduct,
because the reputation of the newsroom was considered to be a sacred
trust. Voice work—even for documentaries—was frowned upon, and voicing
commercials was forbidden: a listener who recognized the announcer’s
voice might infer an endorsement of a product or cause. And while Baehr
is more of a personality than a journalist, the people who subscribe to
MovieGuide are paying for independent commentary, not advertising
camouflaged as film criticism.
The media generally keeps a clear
delineation between advertising and editorial content. Even when critics
review a film produced by a corporate cousin, payment for the reviewer’s
services are not contingent upon a good review, and such reviews are not
unfailingly positive. And when this isn’t the case, the public learns
not to trust that critic’s reputation. Baehr can’t legitimately claim
that he’s simply doing what everyone else is doing.
Quote (MovieGuide’s ‘Straight Facts’)
Reviewers Commonly Promote
Movies
Other reviewers who are not involved in advocacy work and analysis have
been
paid by the entertainment industry to promote movies and other
entertainment. In fact, many of the most prominent reviewers have worked
for the entertainment industry. Other possible conflicts exist; for
instance, Roger Ebert's television program is owned by the Walt Disney
Company, and he routinely reviews movies that are produced by Disney.
In fact, Ebert’s program is not owned by
Disney…merely syndicated by a division of the Disney empire, but either
way, that’s irrelevant. If Buena Vista Television didn’t like something
Ebert said about a Disney film there isn’t anything they could do about
it – they can’t fire him. They could stop distributing his program, but
Ebert’s program would simply move to a new distributor, and the Disney
empire would lose revenue and gain a black eye.
More importantly, Ebert’s situation is
quite different from Baehr’s: Ebert has not ever been a paid part of a
film’s advertising campaign– he doesn’t even accept payment when he
contributes to DVD commentaries. After nearly four decades in the
business, Ebert’s integrity on this question of independence is
precisely what makes his reviews credible...without it, his ‘thumbs
up-thumbs down’ evaluation would be worthless.
A similar charge was made against Ebert
earlier this year by a New York critic, and
Ebert’s response is worth repeating:
Quote (Ebert):
"I'll send him a tape of our show 'Worst Films of 2003' . . . Whether I
go easy on Disney films he can ascertain by checking my reviews,
something he did not bother to do."
Furthermore, it is either naïve or
deceitful to pretend that paid promotional work is comparable to the ads
that appear in Christianity Today.
Quote (MovieGuide’s ‘Straight Facts’)
Christianity Today Simultaneously
Promotes and Takes Ads from Books and Movies
Alongside Allen’s article in the March
2004 issue, stories appear about THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST and Max
Lucado’s new book. Christianity Today, in this very same issue, ran ads
for both products. What is the difference between what they are doing
and what Allen has accused Dr. Baehr and CFTVC of doing?
“What is the difference?” Is that a
serious question? It’s one thing for CT (or any other
advertiser-supported publication) to accept paid ads… quite another for
an editor or individual reporter to be paid. It’s a distinction
that is quite apparent to publishers, editors and readers alike. No
reasonable person reads an ad as an endorsement, nor articles as
advertising. The whole issue of a reader’s trust is predicated on this
issue of the independence of the press, and the public is sophisticated
enough to recognize the inherent self-serving nature of advertising
claims. It’s when advertising content is disguised as editorial opinion
that the public’s trust is violated.
There are several options for MovieGuide:
-
Choose to be an independent voice for
consumers, or
-
Choose to be a marketing tool for
advertisers, or (as a poor third option)
-
Choose to do both, but with
transparency. If Baehr (or
MovieGuide or Kairos Marketing) ever felt the desire to promote a
film, they should do it for free. If inclined to do such work for
payment, the absolute minimum requirement would be for any such dual
role to be publicly acknowledged to avoid any appearance of a conflict
of interest, or (worse)
-
Refuse to review any film in which
MovieGuide has a marketing interest—although this would not eliminate
questions about the organization’s impartiality.
It seems that Baehr
wants to have a dual role (Option 3), but doesn’t recognize the need for
transparency. This issue would likely have already been forgotten if
MovieGuide had simply responded like this:
We realize with hindsight that our
subscribers deserve to know of any instance in which we have been
involved with a film. In the future, we will add a disclaimer to any
such reviews so that the public has the benefit of full disclosure.
Such a disclaimer
could read:
MovieGuide’s sister organization, Kairos
Marketing, has been paid for promotional services in conjunction with
this film. This review reflects MovieGuide’s assessment of the film
based on fixed criteria, and was not among the services offered by
Kairos. MovieGuide founder Ted Baehr accepts such marketing contracts
only rarely, and only in conjunction with films that meet our strict
standards for acceptable content.
News organizations frequently use disclaimers to avoid potential
conflicts of interest. For example, in May 2003, CNN reported that
Microsoft had settled a lawsuit with AOL for $750-million.
The opening paragraph of the story noted that “AOL
Time Warner is the parent of CNN/Money.”
At the bottom of the article, CNN was careful to include a standard
disclaimer: “Analysts quoted in this story do not own shares of AOL
Time Warner or Microsoft, and their firms do not have investment banking
relationships with either company.” Without such a disclaimer, the
news organization might be accused of unfairly promoting itself,
boosting its share price by reporting good news. Such a failure to
disclose, in the context of financial journalism, would not only be
unethical, but could be illegal.
I wish Mr. Baehr no
ill, and I mean no disrespect; after all, the ethical short-comings
raised by CT are not serious moral failures—simply inappropriate
policies and procedures. However, I think it’s reasonable to hope that
he will modify his practices to come into line with minimal standards of
impartiality. The denial of any conflict of interest has simply made
things worse by diminishing Baehr’s credibility.
This isn’t a case of
“attacking our own,” as Pat Boone suggests, but rather a simple
examination of ethics. It may be unusual to see an issue like this
debated publicly, but journalists—especially Christian ones—must be
committed to the truth. On the substantive issues raised in the original
article, CT seems to have been fair, and, in providing Baehr with an
entire page for a rebuttal, the magazine has been more than fair.
This is a matter of
important public interest. Thoughtful, reasoned and informed criticism
of the arts is of vital importance for our communities and for the
church. It is essential that we have a voice in the cultural
conversation that pre-dominates in our society. But for the integrity of
our discussion, we must be clear on which critics speak for themselves
and which ones are paid to speak for others. |
