When I was a reporter, there was a story circulating in the news room that our managing editor had threatened the publisher with resignation over a dispute concerning a business story about a local grocer.

The grocer refused to advertise in the paper, and the publisher wanted the editor to pull the story. The editor refused - citing journalistic ethics and the sacred "wall" between the editorial and advertising departments. The publisher relented, and the editor took on heroic qualities in the newsroom as the story leaked out, and it was retold in legendary fashion.

In public relations, we are governed by similar ethics. We don't threaten to pull our ads when a newspaper or TV station runs an unfavorable story about us, nor do we suggest that our organization deserves special editorial favors because we advertise. Doing so is akin to editorial blackmail. We are often in the uncomfortable role of having to explain our positions to our bosses and clients who sometimes just don't get it.

But "pay for play," bargaining for editorial coverage by leveraging ad buys with a media outlet, is surprisingly common - at least online - according to the sixth annual Marketing Management Survey by Millward Brown for PRWeek and Manning Selvage & Lee, a subsidiary of Publicis Groupe.

In the survey, nearly one in five (19 percent) of senior marketers admitted that their organizations bought ads on a news site in exchange for a news story. In addition, 10 percent of senior marketers said their companies had an unwritten agreement with journalists or editors for favorable coverage in exchange for buying ad space.

Disturbingly, this practice is on the increase according to the findings of the marketing ethics survey. Last year, 17 percent of senior marketers admitted to buying advertising for a news story and five percent said they had paid for or given gifts to editors in exchange for news stories.

It might be easy to shrug off this finding by pointing out that the survey was conducted with marketers rather than public relations pros or by rationalizing that such a practice doesn't hurt anyone and actually helps organizations get the publicity that they "deserve."

Not so fast.

First, many of us juggle PR and marketing hats in our organizations, both pitching stories to reporters and buying advertising from sales reps. That places us in the sometimes-difficult role of splitting ourselves down the middle. We must be careful when we hold the advertising purse strings that we don't slip into the position of merging our marketing function with our PR strategy - even if a medium is willing to engage in "pay for play."

Second, not only is cutting corners in this manner lazy on the part of the PR professional who should be earning coverage through valid pitching efforts, it also corrupts the assumption that a medium's coverage is objective. We all know that editorial coverage is more valuable - inch for inch (or pixel for pixel in the case of online space) - than advertising, because of the assumed objectivity of the media. When that line is crossed, the editorial is no longer credible and places the consumer at a disadvantage.

Certainly, even if the consumer never discovers the "pay for play," such a deal should not be proposed by ethical practitioners. But consider what happens when cozy deals such as this come to light. When Wal-Mart and Whole Foods were discovered posting phony blogs that put their companies in a favorable light, there was a blogosphere backlash that caused great embarrassment to both companies.

It appears that many marketers think that the online world does not hold the same ethical standards for conduct in the new media world. In the survey, more than half (53 percent) said that marketing is not following ethical guidelines in cyberspace.

Even when our jobs do not include marketing responsibilities, as PR professionals, we should be concerned by these survey results. Let's make sure that we don't give anyone the excuse to paint us all with the same unethical brush.

Remember what Ethel says: Always do the RIGHT thing! (Even when nobody is watching.)

To help us with our ethical issues, our chapter has enlisted the help of Ethel, the Ethics Evangelist (a.k.a. Gail Kent, Ethics Chair)! In future issues of News & Views, Ethel will bring you ethics articles, including guidelines for decision-making, quizzes and case studies ripped from the headlines. If you have a particular issue you would like to see Ethel tackle, please contact her!