Sean Penn's profile of notorious drug kingpin Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzman was skewered by journalists almost immediately after it published online Saturday evening because Rolling Stone made a deal with the recaptured convict to seek his approval before publication.
Giving subjects that power is frowned upon in the journalism world due to ethical implications. If the subject of a story has the control, that could lead to censorship and the transformation of a journalistic piece into propaganda. The sheer possibility of that mutation, even if it doesn't occur, could find a publication with egg on its face. In this case, Rolling Stone notes that El Chapo did not make any changes after reading the story before it published, but that didn't stop critics from chomping at the bit.
The future of journalism is a celebrity working for free & the subject pre-approving the article they've written. pic.twitter.com/xcPiXVZ8Xj— Nick Bilton (@nickbilton) January 10, 2016
I don’t think it was worth @RollingStone giving up editorial control to a murderer for Sean Penn’s diary entry and a short Q&A at the end.— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) January 10, 2016
For those saying any media organization would do what Rolling Stone did: You are totally wrong.— Chris Cillizza (@TheFix) January 10, 2016
If Sean Penn doing PR for drug lords (and cluelessly selling them out) is the future of journalism, I think I need to find a new job.— Matt Nippert (@MattNippert) January 10, 2016
Rolling Stone is no stranger to controversy when it comes to journalism ethics. The magazine has made waves with its editorial choices in the past and most recently came under fire for publishing a story about gang rape at University of Virginia that centered on one victim who largely fabricated her story. The magazine was lambasted for not following basic journalistic principals of fact-checking and reaching out to key figures in the piece, including those accused of the rape. The magazine retracted the piece but is still facing an onslaught of lawsuits.
Quick look at Rolling Stone editor right about now. pic.twitter.com/ayOE83zkSq— Chris Cillizza (@TheFix) January 10, 2016
In the case of the El Chapo profile, some journalists also underscored that the way the story was written gave El Chapo, whose Sinaloa cartel is responsible for widespread drug violence, a platform he doesn't deserve.
Rolling Stone put a terrorist on their cover, promoted a fake rape scandal, and now is publishing straight up drug lord propaganda. Got it.— Amanda Carpenter (@amandacarpenter) January 10, 2016
Torn between my desire to read the El Chapo interview and my desire not to reward @rollingstone with a click for giving him a forum.— Karen Tumulty (@ktumulty) January 10, 2016