It's time for you to understand the role of media beyond advertising. Adage gets right to the heart of the issue on the escalating practice of pulling advertising based on media bias...

The primary reasons for advertisers to invest in any media product should be the bond that product has with its audience and the relevance of that audience as a marketing target. Such relationships are often based on trust and credibility. Tools such as ad-pull policies can damage that credibility. They make clear to editors and publishers that if they don't create an editorial environment friendly to a marketer's message, the money will go elsewhere. - AdAge

Moreover, it's time for all PR teams to get ahead of this issue by briefing both their procurement functions and media buying teams on media policies and editorial. This issue could easily be corrected by a little education... I feel for the communicator that once jumped by this issue, then has to manage it.

A separate story points to thinking gone astray: "The memo cites a new BP policy document entitled "2005 BP Corporate-RFP" that demands that ad-accepting publications inform BP in advance of any news text or visuals they plan to publish that directly mention the company, a competitor or the oil-and-energy industry."

BP says: "This is not meant to be Draconian or to influence coverage. We are just asking for a head's up" about a cover story about the oil industry. We never asked to read [editorial] copy in advance."

Um, if you aren't going to influence coverage why do you need to know at all?  Of course the intent here is to influence coverage by pulling advertising from unfavorable editions. This is nothing short of reprehensible however innocent it might seem.

Brands are dependent on a free media environment. One in which Darwinistic forces exit and incompetence, poor quality and hubris can be punished or exposed. Trying to manipulate this environment so overtly is incredibly short sighted.

As an aside, this points to the prevailing environment in which media buying teams rarely speak to communications teams. Any PR team worth their salt could let the media buying team know which stories are in play with which publications.

Saying that I'm going to indulge in what might be seen as hypocrisy - but isn't. I've been a big advocate of companies not funding media or analysts that they deem to be unfairly reporting on them - the media have a right to free speech as much as companies have to free investment of marketing dollars.

But only in the most extreme circumstances and only where all other channels have been exhausted. And on this basis the GM action against the LA Times might be warranted.

Implementing this as a standard operating practice is just plain wrong and amounts to a futile attempt to manipulate the media. Shame on anyone who attempts to do it and good on AdAge for calling it into question.