News and independence
=====================

* John S. Mackay

In their latest protest about editorial autonomy1 the editors note that the CMA declined their invitation to present the association's views. Perhaps as a long-time member I might be allowed to compensate for this reticence.

The editors' opinion, as I understand it, is that they should be independent, i.e., free to „select content without interference” and not „subject to censure.” In other words, they should be allowed to edit, censor and delete at their pleasure, and answer to no one.

I think it was Stanley Baldwin who once described power without responsibility as „the traditional prerogative of the harlot,” and it seems to me, now as then, the media wield enormous power to influence opinion and thereby mould public policy, but answer to nobody for the abuse of this power.

You justify this stance by reference to a statement by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, whereby the foxes agree they alone have the right to eat the chickens, and any objection from the farmer is to be labelled a „transgression” of the right that they just gave to themselves. You then assure us that readers expect this, although it is not clear how many readers you consulted before concluding that their views are unanimous.

Finally you inform us that „the journal does not speak for the CMA.” If that be true, why does it call itself the *Canadian Medical Association Journal*? Am I the only one confused by this?

Surely most people assume that the journal does speak for the CMA, and that the owner, not the editor, has the right to control content. If an editor disagrees with this policy, the obvious remedy is to seek employment with someone whose policy she endorses, or else to publish her own journal.

My problem with your position on editorial independence is that I see no reason to believe that editors are any different. They too form professional societies designed to promote their own interests, specifically the power conferred on whoever controls the content of, *inter alia*, scientific journals. Editorials are given a patina of godlike authority by the tradition of anonymity, when for obvious reasons all other authors are required to identify themselves.

Fairness and objectivity are, as you say, central to the credibility of a reputable journal. The issue is why should we believe this can be assured by giving absolute control to editors, who are I believe also human beings with their own set of beliefs, prejudices, ambitions and personal agenda.

*Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?* 

## REFERENCE

1.  1. The editorial autonomy of* CMAJ* [editorial].CMAJ 2006;174(1):9.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://www.cmaj.ca/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY21haiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo3OiIxNzQvMS85IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjI6Ii9jbWFqLzE3NC81LzY2Mi40LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==)