‘Publicity Trades’ and the Not-So-Free ‘Voice of San Diego’

By Kate Callen

Not sure if you’ve noticed, but some of the most tantalizing OB Rag entries are comments posted in response to our news articles.

Some commenters share trenchant insights that bring us joy. Others entertain us by huffing and puffing (shout out to Paul J!).

And a very few, like Scott Lewis, editor-in-chief of Voice of San Diego (VOSD), post comments that leave us gasping: Did he really say that?

Just the other day, on January 7, Lewis commented on a Rag story about Colin Parent’s 79th Assembly District election loss. He challenged an opinion by Mat Wahlstrom that VOSD and Circulate San Diego, Parent’s money-minting nonprofit, have formed a mésalliance. (Mésalliance is French meaning a marriage with a person of lower social status.)

(Full disclosure: Wahlstrom is a Rag contributor, an ace investigator, and a bear you don’t want to poke.)

Circulate rakes in money each year through “membership” revenues. Two-thirds of its paying members work in the land use sector – builders, architects, planners, real estate financiers, etc.

In return for their support, Circulate aggressively lobbies for greater housing density. Because the advocacy group inexplicably has 501(c)(3) status, its developer donors also get tax write-offs.

To provide context for the Parent story, Wahlstrom commented that VOSD is a Circulate member, listed as a “Platinum Corporate Member” for a “$7,500 annual donation.”

Wahlstrom noted “the obvious ethical conflict of interest of a so-called news org sponsoring a lobby shop.” And he questioned the propriety of any non-profit forking over cash to another non-profit for promotional purposes.

Lewis jumped in to set the record straight. VOSD did not give Circulate any cash. Instead, the media outlet handed over something far more precious in a democracy. It gave away news coverage.

“It’s a publicity trade,” Lewis wrote. “We don’t send them money. That’s the value of the trade. Happens a lot in media.”

For those of us who are passionate about journalism ethics, this is like hearing your teenager say, “I wasn’t anywhere near that keg party. I was across town scoring weed.”

Lewis happens to be right – news organizations do this a lot. If you’ve attended charity galas or competed in 5K races, you’ve likely seen the logo of the Union-Tribune and/or KPBS on marketing materials.

These arrangements are called “media sponsorships,” and they are classic quid-pro-quo transactions. In exchange for primo visibility at the nonprofit’s event, news outlets serve up positive news coverage of the event and the organization in general.

The practice has become so common that a consulting firm called The Sponsorship Collective devotes an entire website to “How to Get Media Sponsorship for an Event: A Practical Guide.” Lessons include “When to Approach Media Sponsors” and “Building a Media Sponsorship Proposal.”

“Media sponsors guarantee you a certain level of exposure on specific channels and publications,” says the Collective, thus “protecting you against the fickle nature of organic media.”

One can only speculate what’s in a media sponsorship proposal. Did VOSD cut a deal with Circulate for $7,500 worth of news coverage? How would that pencil out? Two feature stories and an op-ed? Four social media posts a week?

For the last word about “the fickle nature of organic media” like the publication you’re now reading, I’ll turn this over to Editordude Frank Gormlie:

For the Voice to sell its pages to an influential lobbying group for San Diego’s developer class — a group that has had a strong role in the destruction of our local community planning groups and in providing support for the destructive housing policies of Mayor Gloria and the City Council — it goes beyond the pale of being a bastion of truthful media, despite some of the good investigations the Voice provides. In this day and age, the media must be upfront and truthful to its audience. This arrangement clouds that reality — to the detriment of the rest of us.