"The new model is so ugly that...What's that? They give us HOW much ad money? Uh..hey, what a GREAT looking car!

“We made several changes to the online version of Scott’s review because we were uncomfortable with some of the language in the original. It should have been addressed during the editing process but wasn’t. … the changes did not fundamentally change the thrust of Scott’s piece … a car dealer raised a complaint and we took a look at the review, as we would do whenever a reader raises a flag. The changes were made to address the journalism of the piece, not the angst of a car dealer.”

—Sue Carney, business editor of The Detroit News, lying her head off to rationalize a disgraceful instance of a newspaper changing its content—a car review— to serve the interest of an advertiser.

How often does an ethical news publication publish an article then go back after it has run and change the text, over the objection of the reporter who wrote it, not correcting an error but softening an opinion? Answer: never, by definition. Carney’s quote is so obviously dishonest that it reeks. Sure the complaint of an advertiser whose product is being criticized is the same as any other reader “raising a flag.” Does anyone believe this? Of course the change was made “to address the journalism of the piece” and not the threats of the car dealer. After all, only the editors, whose profession is journalism, approved the original article, and ethical editors always go back and make new edits after they receive suggestions from automobile dealers. Right, Sue?

Just how gullible do you think your readers are?

This was a desperate effort to argue away an ethics scandal at the Detroit News. Scott Burgess, the News’ automobile critic, after his editors caved to a request by an advertiser to water down his negative review of the Chrysler 200. That car is the object of a multi-million-dollar,  “Imported from Detroit” ad campaign designed to herald the reinvigoration of both Chrysler and Motor City. Burgess found the car wanting and said so, as was his duty.

After receiving a phone call from an auto dealer that was apparently a heavy advertiser, the paper made post-publication changes to the online version of Burgess’ review, watering his criticism down.

And that’s it: the end of the paper’s integrity, credibility, and value to its readers. Who knows, from this point onward, when a Detroit News story has been edited, censored, or otherwise slanted in exchange for cash, favors, business, or to avoid retribution from an angry politician? Nobody, that’s who. The paper has proven that it is untrustworthy. Burgess was right to resign; in fact, he had to.

And Carney? Her quote just puts the cherry on the unethical sundae. The paper is standing by its unethical journalistic practices, and lying about it….which is all the public should expect from a news source that crafts its criticism to keep the object of the criticism happy.