Some years ago I founded and edited a short-lived magazine called The Politico for Politicos Bookshop in Westminster.
The owner of Politicos, Iain Dale, went on to become Britain's No 1 political blogger. He also launched 18 Doughty Street, Britain's first Internet-based TV station, and later founded Total Politics magazine and Biteback Publishing before becoming a highly-regarded broadcaster on LBC.
Iain is still the publisher of Total Politics, a "strictly non-partisan” political magazine, and a couple of weeks ago I saw that the current issue (May) features a six-page feature on plain packaging that is described as a 'Special Report in association with Cancer Research UK'.
Special report my arse. If I'm not mistaken this is an advertisement feature, pure and simple. I may not be Inspector Morse but the evidence is damning:
(1) Several times following the launch of the Hands Off Our Packs campaign in February someone from Total Politics contacted me to ask if we would advertise. I said "No" – well, not until the government consultation had been launched and even then I didn't think we would have the budget. No doubt they were engaging with the other side too and CRUK took the bait.
(2) There is not a single dissenting voice in the entire piece. Not one. It's just wall-to-wall propaganda including an interview with CRUK chief executive Dr Harpal Kumar, "the facts and figures behind the case for plain packaging", "an expert briefing for MPs" and a profile of Australia's health minister Nicola Roxon, "the first politician in the world to spearhead a successful plain packaging campaign".
The 'Special Report' even features a quote from a retailer who is in favour of plain packaging. Now that is special because retailers like that are pretty thin on the ground. Well done to CRUK for finding one!
I don't blame Total Politics for such shameless bias. I've worked for commercially driven magazines that would not have existed without advertising so I know the compromises that have to be made to keep the show on the road and the tensions that exist between the editorial and advertising departments - it's not pretty, believe me!
But I do think they should have made it very clear that the piece is an advertisement for the plain pack campaign and not in any sense an objective review of the facts. (Incredibly, a member of the editorial staff even has her byline on one of the articles, giving it a faux respectability.)
In contrast to this lack of transparency, let me demonstrate how Forest does advertorial. In this week's Morning Advertiser (aka The Publican's Morning Advertiser to give it its full title), the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign has a four-page cover wrap that includes two pages of advertorial. Each page is clearly marked 'Advertisement Feature'.
As part of the deal you will also find, in the main body of the magazine, a four-page feature that includes a range of comments for and against the smoking ban, five years on.
It does not say 'Advertisement Feature' above those pages because it's not. It was written by a freelance journalist who was commissioned by the editor and given the freedom to speak to whoever he liked.
The end result includes extended quotes not only from me but also leading pro-ban figures like Tim Martin, chief executive of Weatherspoons, and Martin Dockrell of ASH.
That's how we like it. As a former magazine editor, I believe it's far more interesting for the reader too.
Yes, we asked to see the article in advance of publication but not to 'approve' it. In fact we didn't see it until after it had gone to press so we couldn't have changed anything even if we had wanted to.
Unlike tobacco control we welcome open debate and the publication of views we don't share doesn't bother us, even when we're paying for it! What we value, above everything, is a balanced discussion of the issues.
Sadly, CRUK and Total Politics have taken a different path. That's their choice but how well it reflects on the magazine I'll let you be the judge.
In the light of this week's absurd 'survey' on tobacco marketing CRUK has very little credibility left but I thought - had hoped - that Total Politics was better than that.