The following is an excerpt from our November issue. Subscribe now.

By: Michael Roy Hollihan

Something very important happened at the Commercial Appeal in October, a revelation of huge importance for readers and for Memphis. So important, in fact, that there was very nearly a revolt in the newsroom.

But if you didn’t read a couple of websites here in Memphis, you’d have never known about it. In fact, you may still not know about it.

On October 16th, the Smart City Memphis blog published a scathing post revealing that the daily had a deal with FedEx whereby a series of upcoming articles, to be called “Memphis and the World,” would be “sponsored” by FedEx. This wasn’t just selling advertising, and it wasn’t a themed special section where advertisers would be recruited around lighter, feature stories. This was front page, hard journalism that would carry a “sponsored by FedEx” notice above every story. Think of “advertorials.” Those text-heavy advertisements that are made to look like a part of the paper, where you have to search for the “advertisement” label to be sure are another similar tactic.

The writer, Trevor Aaronson, had no idea of the sponsorship deal when he left town to research his stories. It was only after his return that he learned of the sponsorship. After a heated meeting with Commercial Appeal Editor in Chief Chris Peck, he refused to write anything under that arrangement. Shortly thereafter, the deal fell apart and now the series may be in limbo.

The newsroom was in turmoil as word of the deal and Aaronson’s treatment got around. Reporters and editors were angry that a fundamental rule of journalism had been breached. A petition of protest was put together and circulated around 495 Union Avenue, gaining over 70 signatures within days, from every department of the newspaper.

The day after Smart City Memphis posted, the Memphis Flyer’s John Branston reported the story and published a copy of an internal memo that had previously been circulated only within a tight circle of upper management. That memo explained that the daily was going to explore new ways of “monetizing content” that would cross the old “wall of separation” between a newspapers’s marketing and editorial departments.

The memo went to great pains to remind employees that no advertiser would be allowed to dictate or influence the writing of a story, but advertisers would be allowed to associate themselves more directly to the hard journalistic stories of the paper’s core reportorial staff than ever before.

Branston noted that one such deal had already slipped by with little public notice. The Boyle Investment Group had a “sponsored by” line inserted into the “Done Deals” real estate column in the Sunday paper.

The newsroom exploded. Most employees hadn’t seen the “monetizing content” memo and were shocked to learn that their paper had proceeded so far into taboo territory without their knowledge.

The newspaper industry perked up. The Poynter Institute ran a brief bit in their Romenesko column. Industry trade publication Editor & Publisher picked up the story (tellingly titled “Memphis Editor Admits Fed Ex Sponsorship Idea a Mistake”) and interviewed Peck, asking him to explain and defend his plan. By the end of the week, Smart City Memphis had posted a couple of follow-ups.

The Commercial Appeal sent out a carefully worded email that repeated their defense of the “monetizing” plan and made fun of the Smart City Memphis post. In the E&P story, though, Peck admits he’s backing off using the scheme with “high-end pieces of journalism.”

It was only the racket made by protesting employees, and their speaking to the Smart City Memphis blog and the Memphis Flyer, that got the story out. Had that small amount of media attention not been raised, likely things would still be proceeding as planned. And if you don’t read those websites, or those trade publication websites, or Branston’s column, then you don’t know that your paper’s new policies are so shocking to journalists that the Society of Professional Journalists felt compelled to point out their Code of Ethics prohibits just what the Commercial Appeal is planning.

Nothing has been mentioned in the paper as of the date this was written. In the paper’s own pages – its primary means of communication with its readers – there’s not a breath, not a hint that the paper danced along the precipice of disaster. It’s as though it never happened.

Peck is surreptitiously altering the basic paper-reader contract. It’s unconscionable not to acknowledge this nor the turmoil in his newsroom. Peck is doing something with his paper, to his readers, that most other serious journalistic efforts wouldn’t touch. He’s not telling readers they are going to experience a major change, he’s just going to let the observant and clued-in ones find out for themselves.

The Commercial Appeal’s motto is “Give light and the people will find their own way.” He is hiding this light and leaving readers in the dark.