NY Times Accuses Ski Magazine of Cowardly Self-Interest

by steve casimiro on December 7, 2009 · 10 comments

10 responses

In November, a 14-year-old girl was killed skiing at Breckenridge, one of Vail’s resorts. A Ski Magazine blogger wrote about the incident and offered condolences. Then the blog post disappeared, and now the New York Times is reporting that the reason is Vail threatened to pull all advertising from Ski unless the post was removed.

Ski Magazine denies that Vail had anything to do with taking the post down. “We did pull the story (it wasn’t a blog post but rather a pick up of a Denver Post article that came from a Vail Resorts media release),” said Mike Federle, group publisher of Ski’s parent company’s Bonnier Mountain Group. “I did pull it after it came to my attention and after consultation with the editors of Ski, not because of a request from Vail, but rather because it is not a story that Ski magazine would report on.”

Vail spokesperson Kelly Ladyga, in her comment below, says Vail requested that their ad be moved away from the story on the fatality, not that it be removed.

The Times cites an internal memo from one of the website’s editors to the rest of the staff, which accused Vail of pressuring the magazine and suggested Ski might want to avoid reporting on fatalities in the future.

Ski shouldn’t be reporting on news that takes place at a ski resort, even if it is tragic? Hmm. And since when do group publishers tell editors what to write and what not to write–and then admit it to the New York Times?

Via the Goat.

Tagged as: media, skiing

{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }

Eric Wagnon December 7, 2009 at 16:16: I reported on the very same story and actually found the opposite to be true. I asked the Breckenridge PR/Media rep a question or two re: the release and she was helpful. Then on her own, without me asking, she forwarded me a release from the Summit County Coroner a short while later. Considering it wasn’t a “feel-good” story by any means, I was kind of impressed that she went that little extra.
Tom Horrocks December 7, 2009 at 18:08: Vail is not the only resort that has pulled this on SKI magazine. It has happened many times before and without proper editorial guidance, it will continue.
Caitlin December 7, 2009 at 18:53: Ski Magazine is a lifestyle magazine, not a news source. News sources report the news, lifestyle magazines promote a certain image in a newsy manner. Of course Vail would be helpful to news agencies wanting to report on a story, otherwise it would look like they were covering stuff up. But on the other hand, of course they’d be annoyed at essentially paying for a story to run that would make them look bad to their target clientele. Advertisers don’t sit in on editorial meetings, but the department editors should know better than to jeopardize one of the main revenue streams that’s letting them keep their jobs. Leave it to NY Times and the local papers to give you news, leave it to the other guys to tell you how much fun you can have skiing.
Jonathan Irwin December 7, 2009 at 20:20: Can’t say I’m outraged. I agree with Caitlin…it’s a lifestyle magazine, not a news source. I think most consumers have gotten used to the idea that some magazines are simply an escape. I read (some) magazines to get away. The last thing I want on my break from reality is news. I read Ski for pretty pictures of snow, articles about what I wish I was doing instead of sitting on the couch, and to be convinced into spending $$ on new gear every season…and of course paying MSRP.
Kelly Ladyga December 8, 2009 at 10:11: I’d like to provide some clarity on behalf of Vail Resorts. The point of the NYT blog is nonsense. We were not covering up a story – we were the ones who put out a news release on this tragic incident and made ourselves available to the news media to discuss it, if necessary. We simply asked that our ads not run alongside disparaging content online, which is a standard practice by any advertiser. If there is a point to the blog it’s about an internal issue at SKI Magazine about whether they should cover these types of incidents, which to our knowledge, in the past they have not.
Rob Haggart December 8, 2009 at 11:16: There are so many magazines out there in bed with advertisers and honestly they’ve all lost their edge. Magazines like ski and skiing grew to the size they were because they purported to legitimately review ski resorts, skis and other gear. We’re all finding out this is complete BS. It’s fine if they get rid of all that content or at least admit it’s influenced by advertisers so readers can move on to real review source that don’t accept advertising that’s a conflict of interest. There is no way out of it for magazines, they dug their own grave.
Seth Masia December 13, 2009 at 18:02: I was technical editor of SKI Magazine from 1974 to 1993. During that era we covered all news of the ski world, including fatalities and injuries. We regarded our magazine as the publication of record. We campaigned for safer practices, as did our chief competitor, Skiing Magazine (their editors were spectacularly successful in getting the ski industry to improve the design of ski bindings, much to the annoyance of large binding manufacturers). At Ski we ran articles on unsafe lifts and lift accidents, high-speed collisions between skiers, racer safety, avalanche issues, and we took a lot of guff from advertisers. The National Ski Areas Association invited me to help draft a document on handling disastrous news that became SOP for resort PR folks like Kelly Ladyga — they understand that accidents have to be handled as straight honest news. I’m not sure the publishers of “lifestyle magazines” in any field understand that.
steven threndyle December 13, 2009 at 21:19: Ah, Seth – the good ol’ days. On one hand, I think Kelly/VR’s request to move an ad from one section of a website or whatever to another is justified – buyers pay for “placement” all the time. Sadly, back in 1984 I was riding a chairlift with an editor at a Canadian skiing publication. I had all kinds of great stories I wanted to write about on a whole range of “issues” and she stopped me dead in my tracks: “we’re here to promote the sport…” – (and its advertisers, was the unspoken assumption, I suppose. This magazine was the same one where a sales rep jokingly, well, HALF jokingly, said that “the perfect magazine would have no articles, because then nothing that you writers write could ever piss off my clients.” To which I said, “well, why don’t you start a ‘catalog.’”) Oddly, the name of the publishing division that owned the mag was “Special Interest Publications”, which tells you all you need to know.

However, it also seems that there was some sloppy reporting by the Times as well. One danger of blogging (and even FB), is that a lot of the time people pass on posts from other sites and people get confused as to the original source.

BTW, Steve – is this a repost? What does ‘via the goat’ mean??
steve casimiro December 13, 2009 at 21:52: It means I first saw it at Backcountry.com’s The Goat blog, so I gave a tip of the hat to Rocky. I guess keyword news alerts get to domains with massive traffic faster than those without.
G Skin December 14, 2009 at 10:30: I too thought the NYT blog didn’t understand the way the media interacts with the resorts each season through a variety of issues. Skier deaths happen, if any resource covers one, gotta cover them all, and not all areas handle the tragic things as professionally, or quickly, or with as much transparency as VRI.

The stranger issue this week is the Bob Berwyn/SDN/NYT/Denver Post situation:

It’s bizarre. Everyone knows Bob, good journalist, but he throws some darts. No one can blame Katz for the phone call, the man seems to love pushing a stick into the hive as much as Berwyn. (although I bet, after watching her boss in these formative years, Ladyga wishes she had a stronger leash at times)

But (if the claims play out) the reaction and the timing from his paper, SDN – that’s a scary thing for how media resources are going to have to interact with a tiny & shrinking number of paying advertisers. Which reporter now, at any SWIFT paper, feels like their back is covered?