Given the slippery slope that much of journalism finds itself swooshing these days, this next story might not strike you as any big deal.
But to those of us still in the game, it’s as clear an example as any of the price paid when the shortcuts start adding up.
This particular faux pas belongs to Maxim, the men’s magazine known mostly for building a 110-foot image of Eva Longoria in a swimsuit to celebrate its 100th issue and for once naming Sarah Jessica Parker as the World’s Unsexiest Woman.
(I mean, I’ve never fallen over for her, but World’s Unsexiest?)
Anyway, in February the magazine came under intense criticism for its unfavorable review of the Black Crowes’ new album “Warpaint.”
The reviewer gave the album only two-and-a-half out of five stars, lamenting that the album sounded, “boozy, competent and in slavish debt to the Stones, the Allmans, and the Faces.”
The firestorm started when the band’s manager pointed out that advance copies of the album weren’t made available, making it impossible for the reviewer to hear any more than just a track or two by the time the magazine hit the stands.
Maxim’s editorial director James Kaminsky told the Associated Press, and I’m paraphrasing here, “Whoops!”
He apologized for what happened but pointed out that the piece was supposed to be a “preview” and not a “review.”
The Crowes’ manager called that “self-serving damage control.”
Ah, what’s in a name?
We live in a world where things are expected from us yesterday, a time where it’s more important to be first than to be right.
This is the latest in dozens of cautionary tales of the cost when effort exceeds ethics, and the thin line that exists between doing “more with less” and accepting “less with less.”
I don’t know if “Warpaint” is any good or not.
But I’ll listen to it, all of it, before I decide.