AdAge (free registration required) is reporting another example of big corporate advertising dollars being used to dictate acceptable news content.

In a move even more clueless than Morgan Stanley's, petrochemical giant BP has instituted what AdAge terms a "zero-tolerance policy toward negative editorial coverage". BP's new policy insists that "ad-accepting" publications inform the company 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".

The scope of this new policy is so outrageously broad -- insisting that the company's media buying agency be informed before a publication runs "any editorial that contains fuel, oil or energy news" -- it strikes me that any "ad-accepting" magazine or newpaper agreeing to these terms is accepting much more than BP's advertising.

This is not the first time a big corporation has used its advertising muscle in an attempt to control editorial content, and it certainly won't be the last, yet the arrogant confidence of both BP and Morgan Stanley's approach is still startling.

It's also disturbing to note how little coverage this issue is getting. Apart from the AdAge stories, there's been precious little attention paid by mainstream media. Even the Reuters piece referencing the original AdAge story only seems to have been picked up in a couple of places. (Aux armes, blogizens!)

On reflection, this really isn't all that surprising. According to AdAge, BP's print media buy was $21.7 million in 2004. Morgan Stanley spent over $10.5 million with the Wall Street Journal alone in the same period. For the WSJ to run a piece critical of these gagging policies would mean kissing goodbye to a sizeable chunk of the advertising revenue that is their lifeblood.

Where's Arthur Wellesley when we need him?

UPDATE: Read the new AdAge editorial - "Shame on BP and Morgan Stanley Ad Pull Policies" Key quote: "...shame on all those who stand by quietly as editorial integrity is eroded."